Wikipedia talk:Banning policy

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

Is merge a deletion ?

[edit]

If an editor is subject to a TBAN on XFD 'broadly construed', can they still "remove" an article by merging it? Avoid any discussion namespace by tagging the page (and only the article space page) with a merge-to tag, wait a while, then redirect the page and paste a few lines into the 'destination' page. Would this be an acceptable way round such an onerous limitation on their fredom to edit? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:33, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming you're referring to TenPoundHammer, ArbCom intentionally chose a "deletion discussions" wording rather than one that explicitly referred (like JPL's) to redirecting; see Izno's comment here recognizing that it didn't apply to redirects. I actually complained at the time that the topic ban was too narrow, but at this point I think it's pretty clearly not a violation. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:11, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would say yes, personally, to "Is Merge a deletion". For example, in an AfD discussion, any outcome of Merge/Redirect/Delete would be a delete result, imo, whereas any outcome of Keep/No Consensus/Stubify would be a Keep result. Obviously, the direct outcomes of these differ slightly, with Merge resulting in a following discussion and action to retain some material, Stubify resulting in a shortening of existing article content, and No Consensus allowing for another XfD discussion in a shorter time frame than would be considered appropriate from a Keep result. But, ultimately, the long-term outcome for the status of an article breaks down into these two categories.
Where this gets a bit trickier is the question of whether someone under such a TBAN is allowed to make a Merge discussion at all or participate in an existing Merge discussion, so long as they aren't the one to perform the Merge. To me though, both of those still feels like participating in an XfD discussion, just on a talk page rather than at the actual XfD locations. Similar to this, I feel that doing a Merge or Redirect themselves is the same thing as well. SilverserenC 23:12, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would also like to point out that I recently had a topic ban against WP:BLAR lifted due to no violations within the duration of the topic ban. I think if merging and redirecting were under the terms of the XFD topic ban, then to also have a second topic ban focusing only on redirection would be redundant, would it not? Furthermore, while merges can be the result of a deletion discussion, they can also happen independently of one. So to me, the two are not inherently connected. (ETA: I also feel that the recent merges I have done were done through consensus, without violation of any behavior that instigated the topic ban against BLARing, and overall not analogous to any recent actions I have done that have gotten deemed as "stealth deletion".) I agree with Extraordinary Writ's assessment above, especially when comparing my topic ban to Johnpacklambert's, that merge/redirect activities do not violate my topic ban.
Do you see why I'm starting to feel anxiety after the block last week? There seems to be a lot of hair splitting over what is or isn't under the terms of my topic ban, and I'm starting to have doubts as to whether any given action is running the risk of getting me blocked again. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:28, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also boo to @Andy Dingley: for not notifying me of this discussion. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:32, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not Everything Is About You. Still. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:13, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That may not be the case, but I think this discussion very clearly is about me. Who else could it be about? Who else currently holds a topic ban from XFD, "broadly construed"? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:37, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Topic bans and Wikimedia Commons

[edit]

I have not been able to find a clear explanation for this so I am asking here: do topic bans apply to sister projects like Commons? I simply want to categorize some files. Clarifying this in the main page would be nice for when I eventually forget. Salmoonlight (talk) 00:08, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference, you can refer to the first sentence, A ban is a formal prohibition from editing some or all pages on the English Wikipedia, or a formal prohibition from making certain types of edits on Wikipedia pages., and Wikipedia:Banning policy § Scope and reciprocity. isaacl (talk) 00:45, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay sorry for the brief illiteracy. Regardless I don't think the scope and reciprocity section should be buried at the bottom of the page, it reads like an afterthought. Maybe bump it up as a preface. Salmoonlight (talk) 00:56, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The first sentence specifies the scope of bans, so personally I don't favour adding text before this. Note all Wikimedia web site communities operate independently from each other. The meta Wikimedia site is the only one where there is discussion that can affect multiple Wikimedia web sites. isaacl (talk) 01:06, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Isaac. But for the sake of further clarity, I made this edit: [1]. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:49, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Should banned user template be blanked for all (but WMF) bans?

[edit]

Was originally going to post to Template talk:Banned user, but I think it is better to discuss here.

I am thinking of three options for blanking this template:

  1. Status quo (no blanking)
  2. Blank template for both community and arbitration bans (therefore making the template only be visible for bans by the WMF, but that is covered under {{WMF-legal banned user}})
  3. Hide template for community bans except for administrators that administrators would always be able to see it [clarified 16:56, 16 August 2025 (UTC)] (arbitration bans would remain unaffected because those are decided by ArbCom)

Some considerations:

  • I don't think this template can be deleted because it also adds to a bunch of categories that make it easy to sort out banned users
  • Having the template visible might encourage grave dancing and other counterproductive behavior
  • ArbCom decided to a long time ago remove the display of the template for similar reasons.

(feel free to turn this into an RfC if warranted) Aasim (話す（はなす）) 21:44, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very glad you have returned discussion to this issue. I am very much in favor of doing either (2) or (3), but I don't have a strong opinion about the difference between them. For me, the grave dancing issue is a decisive one. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:37, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For reference by others, here are some relevant previous discussions: Wikipedia talk:Banning policy/Archive 11 § Avoiding pointless ban-tag wars, Wikipedia talk:Banning policy/Archive 11 § Just tone down the template, Template talk:Banned user § Proposal: Hide template for all cases (not just ARBCOM), and Template talk:Banned user § Better idea than suppressing the template for ArbCom.... The arbitration committee controls the process for its bans. As noted in previous discussion, there are other templates for specific scenarios, including WMF bans. (As I stated previously, I think eventually this would have to be discussed at a village pump, but of course it can be discussed here first to see if there is any preliminary agreement.) Can you explain why you're proposing an option with different behaviour for banned administrators? isaacl (talk) 23:24, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am proposing that only administrators (through the use of sysop-show) would be able to see the banned user template. Not that banned administrators would still have the template visible. Aasim (話す（はなす）) 23:55, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. I think as much as possible, admins should have the same user experience as everyone else, so they can better answer questions/understand how everyone else operates, and debug issues. For this specific template, I also think admins need to use the block log to check for blocks, and not rely on a template that anyone could place or remove. isaacl (talk) 00:02, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I back isaacl's thought process here. If we are going to change something, we should change it for all, and the block log has always by far been the best place for that. I'm not sure what a blank template would help, because people would still apply it for the category, unless the claim is that the visual part of the template is the grave dancing. -- Amanda (she/her) 03:54, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah if the template is blanked the categories produced by this template would still remain. There just would not be any visual indicators, and all the banned user categories are or should be hidden by default. Aasim (話す（はなす）) 04:05, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what problem this is trying to solve, and it seems to have failed to gain consensus after several years and multiple attempts. For me, the banner relays useful information that is not typically available elsewhere: this user is banned, here is a link to the condition or discussion which led to the ban, here is the process to appeal (by way of what sort of ban it is), and also do not unblock this user without checking the background of the ban. It's not a scarlet letter, it's a statement of an administrative fact with important supplementary information. If the problem is that people are tinkering with ban tags when they shouldn't be, then restricting their use to admins and designated clerks of relevant processes would be a better approach then tossing them completely, and that could be done with an edit filter. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:10, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally notice of the ban should be linked in the block log. But often it is enough to just link to the ANI or ArbCom case and people will immediately understand. Aasim (話す（はなす）) 17:32, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally yes, but block logs can't be edited if someone makes a mistake, or if there is a need to update the discussion link. And we're not supposed to make block log entries just for annotation, for example to note that an indefinitely blocked user has subsequently been banned. Besides, it is helpful from an administrative burden perspective to have certain information in a common place, and if we were not going to note that a user is banned on their user page, a need would arise to note it somewhere else (similar to WP:EDR). So I guess I still don't understand what is the upside of this proposal? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:46, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The problem I see with trying to rely on user page info to determine if someone is blocked, and to trace the circumstances, is that there's no guarantee that it's accurate or up-to-date. Since the block log is the most accurate indicator of whether or not someone is blocked, using it to track changes to the circumstances would be the simplest approach to centralize the info. Wikipedia:Blocking policy § Recording in the block log says the block log shouldn't be use to record warnings or other negative info, but I think it's reasonable to add an entry to track to whom a block can be appealed. isaacl (talk) 18:19, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no guarantee that entries in a block log are up to date any more than info on a userpage is guaranteed to be up to date, with respect to linking to supplemental information (a WP:LINKROT issue, I suppose). But a userpage can be updated and doesn't have a character limit. I understand the gravedancing concern, but as a checkuser and SPI clerk, and semi-regular AN[I] patroller, I place a lot of ban templates, and the amount of gravedancing I have seen at all (not just when a tag is present) is practically zero, and easily dealt with. I don't think that making it more difficult to identify a banned user will help with gravedancing at all. I am still left to wonder what is the problem being solved here? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:13, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Consider the template {{blocked user}}. A while ago this template was deleted precisely because of gravedancing, minimodding, etc. Checkuser templates I recognize are important for keeping track of sockpuppets to discourage and prevent further sockpuppetry. The decision to hide the template for arbcom bans was likely a decision made privately, off-wiki, by arbcom members for a multitude of reasons.
If we need a reliable way to track bans, we can have that without having a visible template. Aasim (話す（はなす）) 19:24, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that since the block log is the definitive source to check if someone is blocked, then centralizing information in the block log makes it a one-stop shop. I appreciate, though, the convenience of placing information on the user page, particularly for iteratively improving the info. Neither approach can of course guard against the information just not being updated. isaacl (talk) 21:35, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking about this since yesterday, I want to say that any proposal about blanking should exclude blanking for socking/checkuser/long-term abuse. Those are situations where a visible template is very useful for housekeeping purposes, and the gravedancing issue just does not apply.
Now, responding in particular to the concerns that Ivan has raised, I'll say that for me, the gravedancing issue is the big one. It's the reason I keep supporting the idea whenever it comes up again. I think you're right that this represents a very small percentage of the total, but those small numbers of instances can have outsized bad effects. And Ivan is right, in my opinion, that this is really an issue of non-admins sticking their noses where they shouldn't be. I actually don't have a problem with admins, functionaries, or Arbs, placing visible templates on user pages. It's self-appointed busybodies going around doing it when they think that an admin, who didn't apply a template, made a mistake by not doing so, so the busybody is going to "fix" it. I don't recollect ever hearing the idea of an edit filter before, but now that Ivan has mentioned it, I love that idea. Make the software prevent those busybodies from playing wannabe admin, and I'll be a happy fish, blanking or no. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:00, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is the key point—self-appointed busybodies should find something else to do (maybe change titles to lowercase, lol) and should leave the decision about whether a template would be helpful to the admin. A user's contributions shows if they are blocked and scripts are available to display block status if that is too much trouble. Two cases where templates are counter productive are for previously good editors who have gone off the rails, and for aggrieved parties who might leave us alone if we let them leave silently. Johnuniq (talk) 04:15, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As noted previously, there is a separate template for sockpuppetry – {{Sockpuppeteer}}. isaacl (talk) 04:39, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If thats the issue then why don't we just make template placement automatic or require that the blocking admin place one? If everyone automatically gets one then there can't possibly be any gravedancing concerns. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:57, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As Ivanvector mentioned, this template has some informational use cases that the block log may not be sufficient for. However, I am very sympathetic to the gravedancing argument—I was the first editor to attempt (unsuccessfully) to nominate {{blocked user}} for deletion 9 years ago: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 July 22#Template:Blocked user. In its current form, {{banned user}} exists primarily so that we don't have to log all site bans at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions (which is where lesser bans like topic bans are recorded)—maybe a compromise solution could be to move the record of non-sockpuppetry-related site bans off of user pages and onto a centralized page, e.g. at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions/Site bans. Mz7 (talk) 21:57, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There shouldn't be a need to log bans if the block log is used appropriately. Maybe we can get the abuse filter to tag bans in the block log (by looking for potential signs of a ban, such as "per Wikipedia:Arbitration/...", "ArbComBlock", "uw-csblock", "Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard", etc.) and the tag can be manually removed by administrators. Aasim (話す（はなす）) 22:51, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You keep talking about using the block log "appropriately", but the block log has never been the place where bans are logged. Some bans are noted in block logs incidentally, but there are numerous others that aren't: as I said earlier for bans imposed on a user who is already blocked, and we didn't get into accounts that are globally locked rather than blocked locally but still subject to local bans. And that also doesn't cover bans that aren't noted in any sufficient detail in a block log because it's never been a standard practice to dump supplemental information there (we use the templates, or other log pages like EDR, for that). And yes, {{blocked user}} was deleted, but in that case it was needlessly duplicating information that is in a log, and yes there is the {{sockpuppeteer}} template which has a switch for 3X-banned users (information that typically isn't noted anywhere since it's automatic, based on the actions of multiple other accounts, and needs a checkuser to confirm), but I think those are not relevant to this discussion. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:34, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In that case if a user is locally banned after being globally banned the user should still be locally blocked anyway even if they are already globally (b)locked. ArbCom bans should already logged in the block log, why can't community bans not? Aasim (話す（はなす）) 23:07, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All of this is incorrect, and you still haven't articulated why we should do this. Currently, site bans are occasionally logged in other places but it's standard practice to tag a banned account's user page with links to relevant discussion and background, so in that sense all bans are logged on user pages and in the companion category (excepting Arbcom bans, but Arbcom will always do their own thing). Your proposal is to change that practice in a way that some bans are logged in block logs (an administrative log for a related but technically distinct admin action), some are still logged on user pages (i.e. sockpuppetry bans and others that don't involve local blocks), and some won't be logged at all (it is against policy to use blocks to notate non-block actions). The process we have now and have been using for two decades is not broken and doesn't need to be fixed; you have provided no reason to think that it does need to be fixed in spite of being repeatedly asked, and your proposed solution makes things harder for administrators in exchange for a benefit you have not defined. The proposal should not proceed, I remain strongly opposed, and I don't feel that it's a productive use of my time to comment further on an idea you seem intent on ramming through for no other reason than that you can. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:51, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
People are still free to use the template in the exact same way as before, just nothing will appear on screen (except that the user is added to the hidden category Banned Wikipedia users) either for users who are not administrators (if option 3 is chosen) or everyone (if option 2 is chosen).
it is against policy to use blocks to notate non-block actions I think logging a site ban in the block log is an acceptable use of the block log (after all site bans need to be backed up by blocks to enforce the bans); in the scenario I described if the user is then globally un(b)locked either as a result of WMF overturning their ban or the Wikimedia Community reversing course (depending on venue) they would remain blocked on English Wikipedia.
I am starting to feel like a broken record as well. Maybe I am not understanding something being articulated above, or maybe I am doing a terrible job articulating this proposal and my reasons. I agree with you that this thread here is going nowhere and will step back for now. I don't enjoy going in circles either. Aasim (話す（はなす）) 16:06, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that the compromise solution I proposed above was a reasonable halfway point between those who are concerned about the "badge-of-shame"/gravedancing aura of the user page template and those who feel that it is necessary to maintain the template for informational purposes. I am somewhat surprised at the lack of willingness to entertain compromise solutions in this thread and the thread below.
One point to add regarding WP:AMENDLOG. That policy prohibits making very short blocks (e.g. 1-second duration) for the sole purpose of recording negative events like warnings or 3RR violations, but it does not prohibit modifying existing blocks to update the block reason. This is done routinely—one common example is changing a non-checkuser block to be a checkuser block. Similarly, if a user was blocked for a reason unrelated to any ban, and then they were later site-banned, the blocking policy does not prohibit changing the existing block reason to indicate that the block is now enforcing a site ban. Mz7 (talk) 22:53, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like participants in this thread so far must have some context that I don't. We should have a flat rule that ban=template or ban=no template or ban=hidden template. If we have a rule about this, how does "gravedancing" take place with regard to the template? The only time I've seen it come up is when someone wanted to remove a template and others wanted it to stay. If we have a rule that ban=template, isn't the problem then the person that removed it? Assuming we're only talking about site bans and not other kinds of bans or blocks, I think it's reasonable for ban=template as a rule. Having a hard time thinking of why we wouldn't want that in such unusual cases. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:43, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good question, and I apologize for not giving more explicit references to the kinds of situations that concern me. I've avoided doing that because I'm reluctant to draw attention to users whose bans have been successfully appealed, and are currently good members of the community, and who haven't volunteered to be identified in this discussion. It feels to me like they might feel like that would be unwelcome attention, and I want to be sensitive to that. But examples like that do, definitely, exist.
I think of it like there are two subsets of banned users. The larger subset, by far, is people who were banned and who are lost causes, and it makes no difference to me if they are templated, and I'm fine with having a visible template that might help with some housekeeping. But the much smaller subset are those that I just described.
I'm particularly thinking of someone who got a community ban about two years ago, but who subsequently made an appeal that was very well-received by the community, and who is now back and a positively contributing member of the community. At the time of the ban enactment, the closing admin notified the user on their talk page, but chose not to place a template on the user page. That was a considered decision, not an oversight. And I think that there are numerous admins who approach it this way, as a matter of discretion, so I would regard that as "current practice". The idea is that, for the subset of banned users where "indefinite" means something other than "infinite", and where there is a realistic expectation that rehabilitation and a successful appeal are possible and desirable, it is a net negative to "label" them, and a net positive for them to continue to be able to post on their user talk, fix whatever needs to be fixed, working towards eventually making a successful appeal, as happened in the case I'm thinking of. I'll ask editors here: which is more important, having a hard-and-fast rule, or being able to bring back members of the community when they are capable of being positive and valued contributors?
Now in the case I'm thinking of, an uninvolved non-admin came along a few days later and put the template on that user's page, without consulting the enacting admin, and doing it in the interests of "orderliness". I reverted. And some other editors started edit warring over it, with one edit warrior then following me to other pages to be a pain in the you-know-what. It became ugly, and ended up with administrators agreeing that the template should be removed. (By the way, I recently mentioned these events, with diffs, in a current ANI thread, and that very same edit warrior has just shown up here, at WT:BAN in this discussion, so go figure.) This is all so very unhelpful.
So my argument is that we should let admins decide how to handle these things, on a case-by-case basis, and leave it at that. We make RfA a tough process, and we should trust admins to have reasonable judgment. What I oppose is letting non-admin busybodies come along and think that they know better than the admins do, because that leads to the kind of trouble I just described. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:49, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't appreciate the personal attacks, sideswipes, and aspersions... I became aware of this discussion when Rhododendrites' edit made it pop on my watchlist, which it has been on for years and as you've noted have been interested in this topic for years as well. I would also note that in your example the gravedancing characterization doesn't fit because most if not all of those editors were supportive of the editor involved rejoining the community if not supportive of them the whole time. I also don't see how a template like this gets in the way of being able to bring back members of the community, if it did I would likely oppose its use but I don't see any evidence of this. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:39, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
With this talk page on your watchlist, I'm puzzled that a single edit here would have been the first recent one that showed up on it. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:58, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I never said that it was the "first recent one" (whatever that means). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:54, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Should an edit filter be used to make the template admin-only?

[edit]

I think yes, and per the way the discussion above is going, I'd like to discuss that specifically. In other words, an edit filter could be created (not by me, because I haven't a clue how to) that would only allow admins (or users with higher permissions that include the admin flag) to place it, thereby taking it out of the hands of busybodies and gravedancers, and allowing its use to be determined in a more careful manner. This edit filter would have no effect on the policy or decision process of whether to apply a visible template, other than taking it out of the hands of non-admins. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:30, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I don't think this addresses the other concerns, only the concern of minimodding. {{Blocked user}} was deleted for much the same reason as I am suggesting that this template be blanked and only categorize. Having a visible template will encourage gravedancing more than having something that is not visible.
There are only a few cases when a template should be visible, such as if the ban was the result of an office action (to notify the community of the ban), if it is necessary to track sockpuppetry (which is already covered by {{sock}}), or if there are special circumstances such as those attracting press where it is warranted to explain why a user was banned, such as in the case of banning or blocking a politician (for the same reason that we require notification of the WMF m:ComCom when we block IP addresses belonging to political agencies. Aasim (話す（はなす）) 21:22, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. It sounds to me like you are opposing a perfectly reasonable proposal only because you want to let perfection be the enemy of the good. It seems to me like your proposal above is unlikely to get consensus, and I would argue that this would at least do some good. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:44, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Gravedancing doesn't happen with placement of a template. It occurs when a person comes to a user page of an editor they really dislike and comment negative stuff like "I am so glad they are gone now", "so and so did this to me five years ago", etc. Those comments can be taken as breaches of civility which remain unacceptable even after a user is banned. We also have WP:DENYRECOGNITION for when an editor who has only ever made bad faith edits is banned. Maybe it is just me but there are reasons why so many other sites and communities don't publicly discuss moderation actions. If we are to have these discussions publicly, then maybe we should make these moderation actions known on as few pages as possible. Aasim (話す（はなす）) 23:18, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What I think you misunderstand is that, although gravedancing doesn't automatically occur with the placement of the tag, it can very much occur, depending on context. In some contexts, it is effectively the same thing as saying those kinds of things, and I've seen it intended in that way, particularly when a non-admin comes along and does it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:15, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I am revisiting this after a week, I realize gravedancing can also happen with the block log as well. For someone who is divisive in a community we don't want their talk pages and ANB threads to be filled with commentary that is counterproductive. This is one of the reasons talk pages of blocked users are fully protected.
I think it comes down to whether the presence or absence of a template will encourage more gravedancing or less of it. Already I do see problems with templating blocked and banned contributors about their past contributions although I haven't suggested yet that Twinkle or RedWarn skip templating if the user is already blocked. Aasim (話す（はなす）) 14:46, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For all this talk about gravedancing, it's monitorable and can be removed. (We can even collect stats on whether or not a visible message on the user page makes a difference.) I think unduly reducing an editor's tenure to a ban statement is a more insidious issue to consider. (I appreciate that whether or not someone considers a message to be a net positive or negative will depend on how they weigh the relative tradeoffs.) isaacl (talk) 16:40, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't previously thought of it as "unduly reducing an editor's tenure to a ban statement", but now that I've heard it, I think that's a good way to think of it. For many who get banned, it's really not undue, but for those where "indefinite" is expected to be different than "infinite", this makes sense. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:24, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to be more explicit about the underlying concern, and to avoid flamboyant language ("mark of shame"). Yes, for accounts like single-purpose sockpuppets, there is nothing more to their editing history, but there's a separate template for that. I don't like anyone (admin or non-admin) spending time on deciding whose tenure is suitably summarized by a ban statement, so personally I'd prefer a uniform approach for all banned users for which this template is applicable (and not one of the more specific ones). isaacl (talk) 21:50, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a consensus that a visible message is unduly reductive of an editor's tenure on Wikipedia, then personally I think removing the visible message for all affected users is a more efficient approach (specific categories for which there are separate templates are handled by those templates). It also feels like overkill to have an edit filter run on every edit to try to handle this very narrow use case. isaacl (talk) 21:40, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Another sigh. I became an advocate for this issue after I did just what you suggest here. I reverted the template, added by a non-admin, on the user page of someone who has subsequently been welcomed back into the community after a very well-received appeal. But at the time, other editors (all non-admins) edit warred to reinstate the tag. And it wound up at ANI. Where the outcome was to remove the tag. You are describing "overkill to have an edit filter run on every edit". I'd argue that that's a lot less of a hassle than edit wars and ANI, which are likely to happen in those cases where non-admins place the tag and other editors object.
Having said that, I'll ask: are there other, better, ways to make the template "admin-only"? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:44, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did not suggest a one-off reversion of a template being added (and I recall the past discussions). I'll sigh too, because in one of the conversations to which I linked, we agreed on what I did suggest: removing the visible message from the template, leaving it to silently categorize the banned user. The overkill to which I refer is a technical problem. One filter isn't the end of the world, but keep piling those on, and the site becomes unusable, which is more than just a hassle, and so edit filter managers remain conscious of cost/benefit tradeoffs. (That being said, I appreciate the discussion below on what costs are already sunk with the currently configured filters.)
The other approach I can think of is to protect the user page. Of course, there isn't consensus for that at present. isaacl (talk) 06:08, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If there is consensus that only admins should place this template, then perhaps a hard-enforcement mechanism isn't necessary, as long as each banned user page has some admins monitoring it. isaacl (talk) 07:29, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is the status quo. Sometimes the closing admin forgets in which case another (ideally) uninvolved editor places it. Aasim (話す（はなす）) 11:47, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No; there is no established consensus that only admins should place the template. And if there were, then in your hypothetical case of when placing it is overlooked, an uninvolved non-admin shouldn't be doing it. isaacl (talk) 17:38, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I personally have a very poor understanding of how the technology works, so I very much appreciate the explanations below, from people who understand it better than I do. And I hope that we can figure out a workable solution. As for when Isaac and I previously discussed our agreement that it would be useful to silently categorize the user, I still support that, but I also recognize that this is not something that is going to get consensus, so I'm looking for something that will. I don't, however, think that expecting admins to watch each user page of all the banned users is workable. But a point that I'm insisting on is that some uninvolved non-admin who "determines" that that closing admin "forgot" to apply the template is overreaching. Unless that non-admin is a mind-reader (and no, they never are), they cannot tell whether the admin "forgot", or chose not to. Current practice is that admins can make such choices, and I support that. But I also have to admit that the banning policy, the way that it is currently worded, can be construed as denying admins that choice: that arguably it implies that placing the template is something that is always, automatically, done. I am opposed to making that the practice, and I think it's far from clear that admins, collectively, actually do that. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:15, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm supportive of this if the goal is to reduce gravedancing via the tags without changing the way we've handled bans for 20-ish years. But I understand that server load is a concern with new abuse filters, and it seems like editors using ban tags for deliberate gravedancing (as opposed to innocent mistakes) is quite rare. Could a bot manage this? i.e. a bot with a task that it checks instances of {{banned user}} in User: or User talk: namespaces (or pages in the relevant category), checks that the user who added the banner is an administrator, and generate a report or categorize pages that fail? (Or just revert the page?) Just brainstorming, I really have no idea what bots can and can't do here. Otherwise, if not an edit filter and not a bot, this could just fall to basic enforcement: adding a ban tag to a user who is not banned is a personal attack and/or a BLP violation. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:48, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Someone who does more filter work can correct me if I'm wrong (and this is just a technical comment, without opinion on the merits), but if the filter starts by checking whether the edit is to userspace, then that's "free" because other filters already look for that, and if then checks whether the user is an admin, that's free for the same reason, so the only condition that costs anything, the regex comparison, would only be incurred on non-admin userspace edits, rather than all edits. So that doesn't sound like a server load issue to me. But maybe I'm forgetting how it works. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 21:56, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, I wouldn't describe anything as 'free', but the first check for userspace is going to make everything following it dirt cheap. It may be instructive to point to filter 1157 as something in the same ballpark. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:06, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I thought if the same condition is used on multiple filters, the first call is cached for the rest? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 22:23, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. I don't think you're wrong. Finding out something is cached is a cheap operation. Anyway I mainly wanted to point out filter 1157 as an example of something very similar to what's being discussed here (though that one is log-only and a bit more complicated). -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:46, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One other idea (not to step on Tamzin's analysis): could a module do this? I know even less about how modules operate, but I'm just thinking if there's some kind of "common" criteria that a filter could check against, like it checks all members of some category, or all templates that call some module, or I don't know what else, and {{banned user}} is a member of that category/calls that module/whatever else, then potentially it's a start on a filter mechanism for other templates we would want to be admin-only. Again, just brainstorming. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:13, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Modules are processed at page rendering time, like templates. So they can't stop someone from adding a call to that module (or to a template that calls that module) in an edit. isaacl (talk) 06:14, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I think that discussion has slowed partly because editors here don't necessarily have enough technical expertise on edit filters and modules, so I posted this at Village Pump, Technical: [2]. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:54, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That post has been archived, and obviously there has been no further movement on this. I guess it will depend on someone (with a lot more technical know-how than I have) to create something on their own. For now, I have an alternative suggestion, which I'll make directly below. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:48, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested addition

[edit]

For the reasons that were discussed above, I want to suggest a possible addition to WP:BANNOTICE:

Site banned and globally 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. Normally, the administrator or functionary who enacts the ban will place such a notice. Non-administrators should generally refrain from posting such notices without first consulting with the enacting administrator or functionary.

The proposed new text is shown in green font. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:48, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me to address some of my concerns here. Aasim (話す（はなす）) 22:31, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Since I see multiple subsequent postings on this talk page, I'm eager to hear other editors' thoughts on this. I don't want to make an edit to a policy page if there isn't consensus. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:28, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bump. I'm interested in hearing from other editors about whether this edit should be made or not. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:26, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are the following types of reverts considered exceptions from limited bans?

[edit]

I know that this is an exception from limited bans:

Reverting obvious vandalism (such as page content being replaced by obscenities) or obvious violations of the policy about biographies of living persons. The key word is "obvious" – that is, cases in which no reasonable person could disagree.

However, are the following other types of reversions of non-constructive edits also exceptions to limited bans, like with edit warring and the three-revert rule? They should be put under WP:BANEX.

RaptorsFan2019 (talk) 00:29, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That would mean two banned users allowed to revert each other forever.
That said, no one is going to block you for removing CSA images or obvious spam, but for something that isn't obvious and urgent just let an admin know. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:35, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. The first exception should be excluded if we adopt any changes. I'm neutral on the rest. I don't think it matters either way. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:39, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We're off to a bad start on "clearly illegal under U.S. law" if one of the examples is links to pirated software, which are not in fact clearly illegal under U.S. law. (We're allowed to hold ourselves to a higher standard than the law, and do so at WP:COPYLINK, but the only U.S. court case it cites merely says that it's tortious to link to sites where you yourself have violated copyright, and is only binding precedent in the District of Utah. There are laws against distributing pirated software but it's not clear to me that anyone's ever been prosecuted merely for linking to others' uploads thereof.)
Spam is a sensible addition, but rather than get bogged down in details beyond that, I really wonder is if what would work best is "... of living persons, obvious spam (such that it would be eligible for page deletion under criterion G11 if it were a standalone page), or edits that obviously require revision deletion." I'm cautiously in favor of that. Maybe throw some boldface on the current "no reasonable person could disagree" for good measure. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 01:46, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, perhaps we should reconsider COPYLINK to an extent, if it relies on such sketchy reasoning. I'm personally opposed to the community writing policy around laws at this point for the same reason we avoid legal threats - "you are breaking THE LAW" has the potential to have a chilling threat, as an argument. Outside of the most clear-cut and obvious cases, it's better for us to leave the determination of the things we're legally compelled to do to the Foundation's lawyers; people who want to argue for more than that for moral reasons, or personal reasons, or whatever reason should articulate those reasons but shouldn't try to act as an "unofficial Wikipedia legal council" by saying or implying that the law requires XYZ. --Aquillion (talk) 02:22, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a problem here we are trying to solve? I feel like the more exceptions we add the more room for rules lawyering. Galobtter (talk) 01:55, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you cancel your ban-violating edit by reverting it?

[edit]

TL;DR, what this means is, for example:

  • Let's say that User:Example is topic-banned from the topic "weather".
  • The user makes an edit to a weather-related article in violation of their topic ban.
  • A few seconds later, the user realizes that they accidentally violated their topic ban and reverts the edit they just made, basically canceling out the edit.

RaptorsFan2019 (talk) 13:38, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We encourage topic-banned editors to self-revert in this way, yes. I would not sanction a banned user for self-reverted edits, unless it became a pattern. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:40, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]