Wikipedia talk:Banning policy#Semantic markup

The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Wikipedia. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing, and don't panic.

Shortcut WT:BANWT:BAN

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Hello everyone. We are trying to import the interaction ban procedure into it.wiki. Several users are puzzled about one aspect: the current wording prevents direct interaction with the banned user while intervening on the same pages. The doubt is that in this way whoever arrives first on the page is somehow "privileged", since among other things there is a ban on reverting the edits of the other party on a page. What do you do in such cases? Do you ask a mediator or a third-party admin to intervene? Thanks for your help. Kepleriwi (talk) 08:09, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IBANs do indeed give an advantage for the first person to edit a particular page, which is one reason that the enwiki community is often hesitant to impose them. 2-way IBANs work well in cases of mutual agreement between experienced editors, and 1-way IBANs work okay if the subject doesn't edit very often. Other formulations often run into the issue you're describing. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 08:19, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So I wasn't wrong..... thanks for clarifying. Kepleriwi (talk) 08:22, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamzin one more question: what about public procedures? What if, for instance, the other user is an admin? Could I intervene in their reconfirmation procedure or would this be considered a violation of IBAN? Kepleriwi (talk) 08:36, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Under enwiki rules that would be considered a violation. The only exceptions to a ban, unless special ones are added, are the ones listed at WP:BANEX. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 08:42, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamzin, please correct me if I'm wrong: it's not true that IBAN prevents ibanned editors from editing the same articles and participating in the same discussions. WP:IBAN says the interaction-banned users are generally allowed to edit the same pages or discussions so long as they avoid each other,.

So, if I understand how it works, IBAN prevents User A from undoing even partially User B's edits, and vice versa in the case of a two-way IBAN, but it doesn't prevent them from editing the same articles at the same time, or at different times. As for community discussions and elections, IBAN prevents User A from discussing User B's behaviour (e.g. at ANI, AE, RFA, etc.) and prevents them from replying to User B's comments, mentioning them, linking to their edits, commenting on their comments, etc., but it doesn't prevent User A from expressing their own arguments and !votes in general terms, without reference to User B. So the advantage of being the first to comment in a discussion is limited. Somewhere I read (here) that there may be an advantage to being the second: User A starts an AfD, User B comments, and User A should not reply directly. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:58, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's right (at least as I read it; I wouldn't claim to be an IBAN expert). But, to Kepleriwi's question, what you're describing still means that a user can't participate in any review of the conduct of an admin (or other user) who they are IBANned from. I think I've seen some IBANs leave open exceptions like "You may contact an admin / ArbCom if you have concerns about the user / would like permission to start a thread about them". But the problem with ban exceptions is, the more you add, the more room there is for someone to misjudge an exception and violate the ban. As it is, I've blocked two or three users in the past for exploiting the ban-appeal exception to continue harassment of the other person. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 09:24, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification, Tamzin. As I'm reading the discussion on it.wiki (this one), I can see there's some misunderstanding about the scope of our IBAN. @Kepleriwi, it's simply not the case that en.wiki's IBAN prevents those subject to it from editing the same article or participating in the same discussions. IMHO the big advantage of the IBAN is that it makes it possible to address long-running, irreconcilable conflicts between experienced and productive editors without forcing admins to remove one of them from the site altogether. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:06, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with what's been said so far, but in case this helps clarify the issue, when it's a matter of editing the same page or discussion at the same time, there's also a common sense consideration as to whether or not those edits involve "interacting". When editing an article, an edit by one editor that does not revert the other editor, but which affects the same aspect of the content, would probably be considered a violation. Likewise, edits in a discussion that in some way disagree with one another without actually addressing one another would also risk being violations. These end up being judgment calls when brought to administrative noticeboards, but a general rule of thumb is "when in doubt, don't do it". --Tryptofish (talk) 19:01, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gitz6666 Perhaps there was a misunderstanding about the purpose of the IBAN on my part, but there was also a misunderstanding about my words on your part: from the very first edit I said that the IBAN prevents interaction between users on the same page, whereas I never said that it prevented the editing of the page itself. My doubt arose from the fact that the current wording prevents, among other things, reverting edits of the other party on a page. So if you and I have an editorial conflict on the same page, it would be enough for me to edit first to prevent you from undoing my edit, because the IBAN stipulates precisely that you cannot undo any of my edits. This undoubtedly puts the first contributor in a position of ‘advantage’ over the other, which Tamzin also recognised. The only solution I can think of to a situation like this is for the second user to report the discussion to the relevant project, explaining, in a polite manner, why in his opinion the edit made by the first user is incorrect. Once the users of the project start intervening on the talk of the page, the second user can have his say, but always without addressing the first user directly. In any case, I must admit that, while certainly useful, it is a policy that is difficult to apply, because it requires a great sense of responsibility from both disputants. Also because, at least on it.wiki, it is not as if the projects are particularly active (just think, not long ago there was talk of suppressing them), so there is a real risk that a request to intervene in a project falls on deaf ears, with the result that the page remains with the version of the user who arrived first. Kepleriwi (talk) 22:21, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When I mentioned a misunderstanding about the scope of the IBAN, I was not referring to your opening post in the it.wiki discussion, but to subsequent comments which suggested that the IBAN prevented editors from participating in the same discussion. As for The only solution I can think of to a situation like this is for the second user to report the discussion to the relevant project, explaining in a polite manner why he thinks the first user's edit is incorrect, this would undoubtedly violate the IBAN as it is currently interpreted on en.wiki. No doubt, being subjected to an IBAN is unpleasant, but this is exactly the kind of behaviour an IBAN is meant to prevent. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:56, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And why on earth would that be? If the ban affects precisely the users, and not the pages, how would expanding the discussion to include other users who could, they, interact with the other party violate the policy? Not least because this would produce a consensus for or against the edit that both contenders would be bound to respect. If there are only the two users affected by IBAN on a page, the only solution not to benefit whoever comes first is to involve other users. I do not see how this would constitute a violation. Kepleriwi (talk) 12:00, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If there is an iban between users A and B, we definitely do not want either of them to mention the other. If A adds "the sun is cold" somewhere, B must definitely not comment anywhere that A made an edit which should be checked. The question of whether B could query whether "the sun is cold" is appropriate is less clear but my opinion is that B would be inviting a block by asking about the text anywhere. If the text was actually somehow malicious and absolutely had to be fixed, B could email WP:ARBCOM to report the issue. However, the idea of an iban is that B should forget all about A and should never "accidentally" notice what A has done. Someone else will soon notice that "the sun is cold" needs to be fixed. Johnuniq (talk) 14:39, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This may be possible for two users working on two different subject areas, but if two users are the subject of IBANs for clashing on the same pages this becomes almost impossible, and one of them could “take advantage” of the absence of the other to do what he wants on a certain page, especially those things he knows he could never do in the presence of the other user. I mentioned thematic projects as an example of a third party; you mentioned ArbCom: perfect. In any case, this confirms that third-party intervention may be necessary. Kepleriwi (talk) 07:36, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

§ Authority to ban point 6 states (bolding added):

6. Users may be globally banned from the English Wikipedia and all other Wikimedia projects, either by the broader Wikimedia community, by the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee, or by the Wikimedia Foundation. In the case of the former, English Wikipedia users will be explicitly invited to participate in the Meta-Wiki discussion to ban the user in question.

By the logic of the sentence, the expression the former refers to "the broader Wikimedia community", I presume, but the grammar does not quite support it. The terms the former and the latter may be used only when there are two options, not three, as here. I've reworded (diff) so that this is both clear and grammatical. Mathglot (talk) 07:34, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When an editor who has been banned or has had their account blocked tries to evade this by creating a new account, it is known as a reincarnation of the old account. I have literally never heard this terminology used even once in my 20+ years on Wikipedia. Obviously it's not a huge deal, but the page shouldn't advise readers to use terminology that isn't in general use; it only invites confusion. --Aquillion (talk) 18:20, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dang, and here I thought you meant that the banning policy had documented a way to escape samsara. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:23, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking the same thing, Writ Keeper! TheSandDoctor ^Talk 22:19, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Me neither (in far less tenure). In fact, the page mentioned reincarnation over 20 years ago. —Fortuna, imperatrix 18:34, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and I just did this: [1]. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:33, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent bold edit, Tryptofish. —Fortuna, imperatrix 07:32, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Used to be more common, certainly in the early days, still found on meatball. Remained an unremarkable variant on the noticeboards until probably around 2010ish. Good chance someone who had the time could go through the archives and find sporadic usage into the teens. Regardless, agree with the refactoring. 184.152.65.118 (talk) 20:37, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask?

If I am banned from an IP address range, is editing or doing anything else on Wikipedia banned besides reading? I got a global IP ban warning even though I have no idea what I did (I did not use a VPN, first login and account creation, no editing or arguments with any admins).

(This article is translated by Google, as my original language is difficult to write and may cause misunderstandings. Sorry.) Miyushirokomi (talk) 17:08, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes, your IP address can get blocked through no fault of your own (note that, technically, a "block" is different from a "ban" on Wikipedia). The block was likely intended for someone else that was using the same connection. This happens pretty frequently, especially if you are editing from a phone, a school, a workplace, or a public Wi-Fi hotspot. In such cases, you are allowed to continue editing as long as you log into your user account. Mz7 (talk) 18:42, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]