Wikipedia talk:Banning policy#rfc D2E6932

According to WP:AVOIDEDITWAR, {{tq|nce it is clear there is a dispute, avoid relying solely on edit summaries and discuss the matter on the associated talk page, which is where a reviewing administrator will look for evidence of trying to settle the dispute. Instead of reverting, add an appropriate cleanup tag and keep in mind that there is no due-date.}}

Admins User:Star Mississippi and User:voorts are here are proposing an IBAN based on the fact that I added relevance inline tags to edits by an editor who has been making personal attacks, bludgeoning and playing WP:IDONTHEARTHAT for the past month. I commented on content, not personalities. But Star says " No talk pages, no articles, no tags"

If "instead of reverting, add an appropriate cleanup tag" is by the letter advice given to editors to "avoid edit wars" then I request it be added to the letter of this page at WP:IBAN and explained thoroughly and without any chance of misunderstanding. Kire1975 (talk) 02:50, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

• Please stop opening multiple threads about the same question. You are being disruptive. I am not further participating as per your own request. Star Mississippi 03:11, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

:This is not the same question as any other. Do you deny that you said [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1274217193] that edit warring means "adding appropriate cleanup tags" even though WP:AVOIDEDITWAR says the opposite? Kire1975 (talk) 03:24, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

:I seek consensus to add language about tagging content and seeking consensus about content created by "Foo" to the interactions that are banned by WP:IBAN. Kire1975 (talk) 08:23, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

::I recommend that you hold off on these two changes until you resolve the change being actively discussed at Wikipedia talk:Edit warring#Seeking consensus about WP:AVOIDEDITWAR. While it may be that these two changes differ from that change, the more discussions you have open at once the more likely it is that other editors will say "no" simply because they don't have the time to understand your issues and fear that "yes" may be the wrong answer. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:50, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

:::The change being discussed is resolved. Kire1975 (talk) 17:23, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

::::Which change is the one being discussed that is now resolved? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 03:33, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::Oh pardon. I read it wrong again. There was another resolution somewhere else and the solution is that I am banned from describing it. Kire1975 (talk) 03:37, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::Okay, let me try this: Are you looking for any discussion to take place on this page at the present time? Or should we consider the matter closed (for now). - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 05:07, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I believe that all of wikpedia would benefit if "tagging and seeking consensus about Foo's edits, even though it's recommended for undepecrated users at WP:AVOIDEDITWAR" were added to the list of examples on WP:IBAN. It's presence could have prevented the disruption and drama that occurred this week that I am not allowed to name but there are links to above. Kire1975 (talk) 07:08, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Thank you for identifying the proposed change. Do you want - and have the ability - to (a) discuss this proposal now, or (b) wait a while to let the unnamed "disruption and drama" to cool down a bit? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:58, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

There have been recent instances of BANREVERT being used to justify edits to articles that change its style, including removal of tags for date format and ENGVAR and changes in punctuation from MoS-compliant LQ to non-compliant style. For example, here.[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nicolae_Ceau%C8%99escu&diff=prev&oldid=1284360413] Whether or not these changes were made originally by a now-banned editor, where an article’s existing style is MoS compliant, or is tagged to reflect national ties or to retain its long-standing format, BANREVERT should not be used to force an unjustified change in style. I have made a bold edit to add this point into the article with "Care should also be taken to preserve the existing style and format of an article, where this already conforms with the Manual of Style, and to respect article tags where these already reflect WP:TIES or RETAIN." MapReader (talk) 04:41, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

:I'm just trying to undo the changes of a sockpuppet where they seem to be violating guidelines and policies. There are some cases where the changes were ambiguous and I have erred on the side of reverting in those cases. While their MOS violations are how I found the account originally (I've been working on an edit filter related to date format changes against the existing date format), I'm also very concerned about the amount of political POV-pushing and other problematic changes in their edits (e.g., inserting dozens of images of right-wing politicians into various articles).

:If the state of the article prior to their changes is consistent with one variety of English or another, then let's have a discussion about encoding that with a template, but I don't think it serves the community's interests to adopt their changes wholesale.

:Regarding the example you cited (Nicolae Ceaușescu), I checked the state of the article prior to the sockpuppet's edits and the spelling seemed somewhat more consistent with American spelling (which is perhaps why Marginataen went to town). The first substantial version of the article where you can tell the English variant was also [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nicolae_Ceau%C8%99escu&oldid=335199 originally written with American English].

:Regarding the change you made to the policy, I'm not in favor of the change. The policy shouldn't be a repository for venting and the MOS is not on par with the other policies being cited. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 05:36, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

::You've made dozens of mindless changes, including removing tags when the correct ENGVAR for the article is obvious, because they are biographical articles about British or American people, or where the ENGVAR or date format is very clear from a review of the article as it was before the sockpuppet edits. This isn't constructive at all, and there isn't any "ambiguity" about the correct ENGVAR and date format for articles like Sir Frederick Fletcher-Vane, 2nd Baronet or Myles de Vries or William DuBois (architect). You've also made edits that insert LQ errors back into an article. The object of the proposed change to the policy was to clarify that BANREVERT shouldn't be misused to change article style nor to restore formats that don't conform with the MoS. MapReader (talk) 08:54, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Many LTAs infest Wikipedia and they cause enormous trouble—trouble that can end up driving away good editors who become frustrated that they can't get help. The only help available is WP:DENY. Please do not make a fuss because that only encourages troublemakers to keep going. If you believe some edits are needed, please just make them without mention of any other editors. Johnuniq (talk) 11:09, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

:::The {{tlx|Use American English}} tag additions were pointless edits to articles with obvious ties so the account could finish getting to 500 edits. Nobody with any sense will be in a rush to restore them. And I don't think Sir Frederick Fletcher-Vane, 2nd Baronet and his countrymen were ever in danger of having their articles converted to American English. But WP:BANREVERT is policy and it allowed taking care of not just the MOS violations, but also the POV pushing, the POV image additions, the sometimes wrong and sometimes right quotation mark changes, etc. Anyhow, back to the salt mines. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 23:45, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

:A banrevert can't change article style, it is a revert. It does not force anything. Requiring editors to go through sock edits to check for specific MoS compliance is a massive waste of time. CMD (talk) 12:06, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

::An editor removing ‘British English’ and DMY tags from an article about a British baronet, or deleting ‘American English’ and MDY tags from an article about an American architect, when those are the only changes achieved by their revert, should surely be looking and thinking about the changes they are making before mindlessly clicking on ‘publish’? MapReader (talk) 12:17, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

:::No, editors should not be burdened with double checking the edits of every disruptive sock. If the tags matter (and it sounds like in those two cases the tags are irrelevant due to the situation being obvious) another editor will add them. CMD (talk) 12:23, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

::::They only need to look at the edits they are making the once, to realise that they are unhelpful. MapReader (talk) 12:48, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::Those involved in sock cleanup are not making specific edits, they are performing janitorial work. The less time they spend doing that, the more time they have to actually go and make the edits they want to make. CMD (talk) 13:10, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

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)

: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)

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

:::@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)

::::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)

:::@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 {{tq|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)

::::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)

:::::Thanks for the clarification, Tamzin. As I'm reading the discussion on it.wiki ([https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bar/Discussioni/Interaction_ban:_%C3%A8_arrivato_il_momento%3F 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)

::::::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)

::::::@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)

:::::::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 {{tq|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)

::::::::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)

:::::::::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)

::::::::::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)

{{alink|Authority to ban}} point 6 states (bolding added):

: 6. {{xt|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)