Wikipedia talk:Banning policy

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: But sandbox is generally considered a practice ground and hardly any other editor visits it. Dympies (talk) 03:04, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Please add sandbox to the para for "TBAN" 

message: :::Here is my feedback on each change:
:::*  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."
:::*  Strong emphasis feels like an unnecessary intensifier. I suggest removing bold weight.
:::*  Underlining is not recommended by , and again emphasis feels like an unnecessary intensifier. I suggest removing the underline.
:::*  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.
:::*  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.
:::*  Emphasis feels like an unnecessary intensifier. I suggest removing the italic markup.
:::*  Italic markup seems unnecessary. I suggest removing it.
:::*  "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."
:::*  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."
:::*  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: There's another change, not listed above. It's in a footnote in the WP:BANEX section. The relevant part of the text is , 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)
replies: text: Yes, I discussed this change. I suggested just removing the underline. isaacl (talk) 23:22, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I changed it: . With that, the overall cumulative changes to the policy page are this: . 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: If we aren't all unhappy, it ain't a compromise :) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 00:03, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no interest in starting a broader discussion elsewhere. Again,  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 DoTM. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:08, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Whether to use formatting or not

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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 , 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)
thread_title:  WP:PROXYING - can indeffed users ask other users to copy paste an XFD !vote? 

message: 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)
replies: text: An example is here, here and here. TheGreatestLuvofAll (talk) 18:38, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Three times ban? 

message: WP:BANNOTICE states .
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)
thread_title:  Does WP:BANNOTICE apply to topic bans?