Knowledge (XXG) talk:Banning policy

784:

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.

937:

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? --

1140:

621:

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. --

2236:

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.

2006:, 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 1605:

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

838:

Knowledge (XXG) 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).

1626:

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.

2068:. 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. 76: 2631:, part of this policy, limits what actions editors can take at the direction of banned or blocked users. We don't currently have any constraints placed on the banned/blocked users themselves. I'm suggesting that we add such constraints, though I don't have a draft in mind. Is there any interest in proscribing, possibly with some exceptions, directing others to edit on your behalf when subject to a site ban or site block? 389:) 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. 2203:

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.)

1211:

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

893:. (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. 1858: 792:

this type of guidepost technique isn't used in articles.) Second, given that even on Knowledge (XXG) 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.

21: 1009:, 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.) 2747:

I agree it's not a matter for community consensus, but I also don't think we should read something into the contentious topic procedure that isn't there. As currently written, it doesn't specify that editing restrictions under the scope of the standard set must be on a broadly construed set of pages,

1604:

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

1524:

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

1001:

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

2762:

It seems to me that if "broadly construed" were automatically required, it would go without saying. In the vast majority of instances, it's beneficial to say "broadly construed", so it gets said the vast majority of the time. But the fact that it gets said implies that, if it had not been said, then

1049:

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

501:

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.

417:

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

2235:

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

2214:

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,

2182:

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”;

822:

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

2004:

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

1916:

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

1797:

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

1782:

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

1176:

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

951:

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

837:

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

791:

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,

741:

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.

620:

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

2197:

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

1716:

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

2202:

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

1625:

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

787:

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

783:

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

1210:

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

807:

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?

765:

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

914:

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

1139:

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

936:

2583:

No. It's too common to see that t-banned editors have unorthodox, inconsistent, or erroneous interpretations of policy. I can see the case for the BLP exception, since we're so sensitive around BLP issues, but expanding the exception is more likely to lead to problems than to fix them.

703:

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

1002:

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).

2000:. 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 2215:

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. –

2528:

Agree with Firefangledfeathers. This is both the written policy and usual practice. In any case, the admin who imposed the ban can vary the conditions to make them stricter or weaker than usual, so that is who you should ask regarding the details of your ban.

2327:

Sorry. Topic bans normally cover all pages related to the topic in question. If we agree on that, I'm suggesting it be written into our guidelines for using personal talk pages. I'll change the section heading also. Fortunately I haven't started cooking yet!

1576:

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

1222:

context, it's fair to consider what is convenient for most Knowledge (XXG) editors, and what is most familiar to most Knowledge (XXG) editors, and the fact that WMF still gives us software where the multiple-apostrophe markup is the default. If we're not

952:

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.)

671:

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.

1529:

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,

1754:, 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? -- 1322:

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):

2432:

I've made this proposal about a month ago, with no feedback, I'm extremely hesitant to just make the changes to such a high profile policy page. Is this a be bold situation? Do I need to get an administrator to make a change to a policy page?

1156:

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

370:

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

2492:

Topic banned editors are not allowed to make edit requests related to the designated topic. I think there's a lot we could do to clarify what a topic ban covers, but I think this case is already pretty clear in the policy, especially:

2183:

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)

2146:". 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. – 2409:, change: "Bans imposed by community consensus or for repeated block evasion may be lifted by community discussion (unless needing ArbCom review)" to begin with "After appeal, bans imposed by community consensus ...". 2039:. 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? – 915:

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.

1359:

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

1963:. 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 2701:. So admins are authorized to impose an editing restriction for a tailored subset of the designated contentious topic area. As a matter of practicality, they should be very clear on the boundaries of that subset. 1393:

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.

2606:. Absolutely agree. We don’t want arguments about policy, BLP is the only exception we should have for the reasons you give plus many of these editors are in any case too inexperienced to understand them 635:

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,

2763:

it wouldn't necessarily be the case. We now even have page blocks, so in theory it should be acceptable to ban, explicitly, from a clearly defined narrow set of pages, if that is the chosen sanction. --

1325:

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.

766:

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? --

2010:, 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. -- 2678:

If it does that seems to create problems for both the editor and any Admin trying to enforce it. Note this is not a hypothetical question as it’s based on a ban from gensex with this exception.

844:. 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 1023:

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

788:

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).

2114:

Editors who are indefinitely blocked by community consensus, or remain indefinitely blocked after due consideration by the community, are considered "banned by the Knowledge (XXG) community"

1215:

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.

2282:

We've discussed this before but I don't think come to any conclusion. If I'm right and this applies to user talk pages, which is what it suggests, would it be useful to mention this at

2538:

Topic bans are something that should not be confused with the extended confirmed restriction for the Israel-Palestine topic area, where edit requests are the only permitted action. --

1227:

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

458:

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

2064:, 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 2448: 1876:

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.

35: 1536:

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.

970:

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. --

514:

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. --

2451:. Sorry, I don't have an opinion at the moment but people are generally reluctant to change long-standing wording that has generally worked. Also, there is always an 1566:"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." 497:

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

263: 1349:

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

2364:

damn, should have read that more carefully. I searched for "user talk" which of course didn't find that. I'll point this out to the user I was thinking about.

455:

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).

1477:

Bold weight feels unnecessarily loud. I suggest re-writing it to "When a ban refers to a page, this includes any Knowledge (XXG) page, across all namespaces."

291:. 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. -- 1509: 1245:

Where we disagree is that about whether it is an accessibility issue here. Emphasis should use emphasis markup, because semantic markup is more accessible.

1312:

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

148: 143: 1959:

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

1840:

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.

227: 136: 131: 126: 119: 114: 109: 102: 97: 92: 2724: 2640: 2593: 2519: 2414: 2314: 2099: 1259:) 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 1206:

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

2733:

I also agree with Isaac but want to note that Contentious topics rules are set by ArbCom so we can't really come to a binding consensus here. Best,

2455:

possibility that a third-party might have a good reason to ask for an unblock of someone and that should not be shut down by more wording here.

393: 883:(ironically, emphasis added). Emphasis in general is not used throughout mainspace, but on those rare occasions it is used it should be with 1818:. 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 1091:

are meant to do. There are plenty of sources which explain why using semantically appropriate HTML is an accessibility concern (see, e.g.

31: 27: 1416:

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

30:

on Knowledge (XXG). Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review

1896: 1699: 1654: 1399: 1332: 1273: 1183: 1120: 898: 748: 654: 603: 542: 479: 401: 332: 271: 2082:

I think community-imposed sanctions should be appealed to the community, regardless of what we call them. I think that's mostly what

1502:

If someone is banned from the Knowledge (XXG) namespace, administrative boards, or is under a similar restriction, this exception

2694: 2399: 1560:

Editors who are banned from specific pages or topics must immediately cease editing these pages or topics. If they do not,

2720: 2636: 2589: 2515: 2310: 2095: 1422:

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. --

841:

I'm also starting to realize that this as-yet unchallenged 2011 edit to an obscure corner of MOS should also be reverted:

637: 1917:

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. --

1644:(in other words, I did not change anything that was presentational to use emphasis markup). I purposefully left it as 1586:

Though personally I wouldn't give this additional emphasis, I can see an argument for it and thus using strong markup.

181: 2655: 2651: 2061: 1264: 440:

What is the scope of this campaign? Is every use of wikitext going to be replaced with "correct" html? On all pages?

1854:

At this point, I wince when I read this discussion. If everyone is a little bit unhappy, maybe that's good enough.

1798:

you and others may have a different view. We both agree that underlining is not a best practice for this sentence.

1298:

Please explain to me why non-semantic markup is less accessible, even though it will not confuse anyone. Thanks. --

1107: 1950:

Sorry for necroing this, but I saw it at RFA today, and I don't really want to comment negatively in the RFA. But

1675:, you changed the markup for the italic setting to emphasis, and my comments were about that portion of the text. 217: 2406: 645: 160: 39: 2716: 2632: 2603: 2585: 2511: 2324: 2306: 2134:

Basically CBAN is the who, site ban is the what, and the indef is the how. Someone who thoroughly fucks up is "

2091: 1960: 1200:

Thank you for answering, and it seems to me that this is, indeed, what it boils down to. I referred below to

473:

errors, not for emphasis. While I was making that edit, I also fixed other markup to semantically meaningful.

2225: 2049: 1977: 2283: 2117: 2417:. Having these two statements would have saved me time, and the time of some very annoyed administrators. 1903: 1706: 1661: 1406: 1339: 1280: 1190: 1127: 905: 755: 661: 610: 590: 549: 486: 408: 339: 278: 1485: 2684: 2612: 2370: 2334: 2292: 2628: 1783:

remaining changes that are contested are not overly confusing to editors looking in the edit window. --

47: 2112:

to raise the question here. Actually on checking this policy it's quite clear it is a CBAN as it says

576:

Rereading this, I think I should clarify that the recent discussion is not the impetus of the change.

2768: 2543: 2351: 2188: 2015: 1922: 1867: 1831: 1788: 1759: 1616: 1427: 1369: 1303: 1236: 1167: 1147: 1055: 1032: 985: 975: 942: 866: 856: 813: 771: 677: 626: 567: 519: 423: 358: 296: 2135: 1094: 2738: 2499:"The purpose of a topic ban is to forbid editors from making edits related to a certain topic area" 2346:

section of this policy page says explicitly that it applies in user space, including user talk. --

2749: 2702: 2659: 2460: 2438: 2422: 2237: 2216: 2204: 2109: 2069: 2040: 1968: 1877: 1841: 1799: 1769: 1718: 1676: 1627: 1591: 1010: 953: 931: 916: 824: 793: 713: 445: 166: 2554: 2143: 2087: 1747: 1570:

Such a block will necessarily prevent their editing of the entire site, but they are not banned

529: 2699:

page bans (from the entire contentious topic, a subtopic, or specified pages within the topic)

2573: 2482: 2394:

I propose two changes/additions to the page to reflect how policy is actually being enforced:

2171: 2152: 2125: 1893: 1696: 1651: 1396: 1329: 1270: 1180: 1117: 895: 745: 651: 600: 539: 476: 398: 329: 268: 2343: 2139: 2083: 1512:, and again emphasis feels like an unnecessary intensifier. I suggest removing the underline. 2753: 2706: 2679: 2663: 2607: 2365: 2329: 2302: 2287: 2241: 2073: 1881: 1845: 1826:) confuse editors who edit the page and are accustomed to the multiple-apostrophe markup. -- 1803: 1773: 1722: 1680: 1631: 1595: 1014: 957: 920: 828: 797: 326:. With all due respect, I don't believe day-to-day experience trumps accessibility concerns. 162: 75: 2650:

Directing others to edit on your behalf while banned is ban evasion, which is discussed in

2563: 2452: 2258:

Should our guidelines for user talk pages include something on how topic bans apply to them

1493: 1382: 1111: 503: 2764: 2539: 2398:

Explicitly state somewhere that third-party appeals are not entertained, similarly to the

2361: 2347: 2184: 2011: 1918: 1863: 1827: 1784: 1755: 1612: 1423: 1365: 1299: 1232: 1163: 1143: 1051: 1028: 981: 971: 938: 862: 852: 809: 767: 673: 622: 563: 533: 515: 498: 419: 354: 292: 198: 164: 2026:

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

1137:

Maybe you could summarize how those "plenty of sources" rebut what I said above? I said:

1096: 742:

So, the direct answer: I don't know, but mostly in the project/help/template namespaces.

2734: 966:

Thanks. I think this additional information provides even more reason to conclude that

1498:

Strong emphasis feels like an unnecessary intensifier. I suggest removing bold weight.

1092: 2530: 2456: 2434: 2418: 1546:

Emphasis feels like an unnecessary intensifier. I suggest removing the italic markup.

1390: 1386: 1361: 709: 705: 441: 257: 204: 2772: 2757: 2748:

and as far as I can recall, there is no context in the procedure that implies this.

2742: 2728: 2710: 2687: 2667: 2644: 2615: 2597: 2577: 2547: 2533: 2523: 2486: 2464: 2442: 2426: 2373: 2355: 2337: 2318: 2295: 2245: 2230: 2209: 2192: 2175: 2157: 2129: 2103: 2077: 2054: 2019: 1982: 1926: 1907: 1885: 1871: 1849: 1835: 1807: 1792: 1777: 1763: 1726: 1710: 1684: 1665: 1635: 1620: 1599: 1431: 1410: 1389:

is not. Most of the time presentational markup is what should be used, which is why

1373: 1343: 1307: 1284: 1240: 1194: 1171: 1151: 1131: 1059: 1036: 1018: 1006: 989: 961: 946: 924: 909: 870: 832: 817: 801: 775: 759: 717: 681: 665: 630: 614: 571: 553: 523: 490: 449: 427: 412: 362: 343: 300: 282: 2569: 2478: 2167: 2147: 2121: 1997: 536:. That is not an accessibility issue; I sincerely apologize for implying otherwise. 220:(even though countless editors use it for emphasis...). Likewise for italics: from 2108:

I was part of the uncertainty at the thread at Drbogdan's talk page that prompted

1475:, including for example user, talk, discussion, file, category or template pages. 238: 1989: 1956: 1607: 1418: 1351: 1202: 2568:", should simply say 'obvious violations of Knowledge (XXG)'s policies' imo. 2090:

are about, as well as making sure enough time is taken on serious matters.

1510:

Knowledge (XXG):Manual of Style/Text formatting § How not to apply emphasis

1294:, while at the same time you are saying that it is an accessibility issue 1106:

is incorrect, that is an argument you can make at a RfC. I am reminded of

1065: 593:. I opened that thread at the MOS talk page to make sure I understood the 1815:. With that, the overall cumulative changes to the policy page are this: 1378: 1260: 1246: 1103: 734: 577: 318: 305: 221: 2674:

Can a topic ban from a ct area specifically exclude “broadly construed”?

2477:

Are you allowed to still make edit requests? Why is the rule not clear?

2305:, you may want to provide a bit more context for those just joining us. 2166:

from Ivanvector (the blocking admin for Drbogdan which prompted this).

1768:

Yes, I discussed this change. I suggested just removing the underline.

1098:). I am not sure why a change for accessibility needs to be considered 1050:

it will be appropriate at some point to undo the formatting changes. --

34:

before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to

1913:

I have no interest in starting a broader discussion elsewhere. Again,

321:

says that in the rare cases bolding is used as emphasis we should use

20: 846:

there are no plans to make changes of that sort throughout mainspace

723:

In articles, apostrophes are correct the vast majority of the time.

392:

Screen readers and other assistive tech need to distinguish between

1110:: if the rules are wrong, the solution is to change the rules, not 823:

get announced, as it results in too many extraneous announcements.

2037:

the community's consensus is that Drbogdan is blocked indefinitely

1550:

Editors in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the

1005:

Regarding the manual of style diff, as it's in alignment with the

1642:

Editors who are blocked from editing by the Arbitration Committee

2062:

Knowledge (XXG):Banning policy § Community bans and restrictions

1964: 1007:

techniques described in the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines

264:

Knowledge (XXG) talk:Manual of Style/Accessibility § Strong tags

2656:

Knowledge (XXG):Banning policy § Reset of ban following evasion

2506:"discussions or suggestions about anywhere on Knowledge (XXG)" 2031: 26:

The project page associated with this talk page is an official

256:) is often used in practice for emphasis, but this use is not 167: 69: 15: 1544:

be reverted just because they were made by a banned editor...

1506:

allow for reporting vandalism to administrative noticeboards.

1364:, as another editor pointed to earlier in this discussion. -- 1292:

will not confuse anyone, put differently, it is not "broken"

462:

allow for reporting vandalism to administrative noticeboards

367:

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

1992:; I hadn't realized that before. The part of MOS where it 1689:

Ah. I see that as emphasis (i.e. this avenue of appeal is

2652:

Knowledge (XXG):Banning policy § Evasion and enforcement

2066:

are considered "banned by the Knowledge (XXG) community"

1752:

this exception does not allow for reporting vandalism to

1488:(such as page content being replaced by obscenities) or 1162:. I'm not understanding how that refutes what I said. -- 876:

I didn't say I have no plans to touch mainspace. I said

534:

Template:Anchor#Rationale for substitution in the header

2163: 1951: 1914: 1816: 1813: 1672: 1556:

Italic markup seems unnecessary. I suggest removing it.

842: 560: 349:

I can't tell from the MOS discussion whether there are

289: 55: 1954:

seems questionable to me. A search for <strong: -->

1582:

It is unacceptable to take advantage of banned editors

235:

element or by enclosing the emphasized text within an

510:

issues having to do with accessibility, if there are

1952:converting a bunch of concise code to verbose code 1890:If we aren't all unhappy, it ain't a compromise :) 968:there is not a legitimate accessibility issue here 737:, there are numerous reasons to use bold/italics; 2695:Knowledge (XXG):Contentious topics § Standard set 1471:When the word "page" is used in a ban, it means 260:correct markup, so emphasis markup is preferred. 2693:The standard set of restrictions described at 2562:...or obvious violations of the policy about 1640:For clarity, I did not change the bolding of 1574:the site and remain members of the community. 368: 262:There is recent discussion on this matter at 175:This page has archives. Sections older than 8: 2654:. One potential consequence is discussed in 2120:which seems to address this specific point. 2035:was recently blocked, and the closer stated 1296:because semantic markup is more accessible. 2270:The following discussion has been closed. 2261: 2118:the RfC that's the citation to those words 1750:section. The relevant part of the text is 1494:policy about biographies of living persons 1102:to be worthwhile. If you argument is that 230:way to indicate emphasis is with the HTML 1744:There's another change, not listed above. 2390:Explicit policy on third party "appeals" 1564:a block will be used to enforce the ban. 2698: 2561: 2505: 2498: 2113: 2065: 2036: 1751: 1580: 1569: 1559: 1549: 1539: 1528: 1515: 1501: 1480: 1470: 1356: 1324: 1295: 1291: 1138: 1099: 877: 459: 225: 185:when more than 4 sections are present. 2116:. It's even clearer when you look at 1611:assertions, and I'm still waiting. -- 1517:Editors who are blocked from editing 733:are for emphasis, not formatting. At 644:disabled). I would welcome an RfC at 502:Has that template been brought up at 7: 1855: 1467:Here is my feedback on each change: 888:or (in extraordinary circumstances) 2136:banned from editing Knowledge (XXG) 1717:feel that emphasis is appropriate. 1693:open to editors blocked by ArbCom). 1318: 1313: 1255: 1250: 1087: 1082: 1069: 889: 884: 729: 724: 581: 465: 385: 376: 322: 309: 252: 231: 212: 1508:Underlining is not recommended by 562:. But my other concerns remain. -- 394:semantic emphasis and presentation 14: 2447:The AN section you linked is now 2413:Background for this can be found 2144:enforced with an indefinite block 2005:HTML tags such as <button: --> 353:accessibility concerns or not. -- 179:may be automatically archived by 1965:MalnadachBot's HTML linting task 1856: 1554:of a banned or blocked editor... 1458:Whether to use formatting or not 978:) 17:58, 15 February 2024 (UTC) 859:) 19:34, 14 February 2024 (UTC) 74: 19: 2473:Do TBans include edit requests? 1073:(which is the HTML produced by 597:guidelines, not to change them. 1988:You're right that it isn't in 1540:This does not mean that edits 1357:semantic markup should be used 1290:You seem to be saying that it 849:problems in mainspace are rare 32:policy editing recommendations 1: 2564:biographies of living persons 2342:The last bullet point in the 1927:00:08, 19 February 2024 (UTC) 1908:00:03, 19 February 2024 (UTC) 1886:23:56, 18 February 2024 (UTC) 1872:23:53, 18 February 2024 (UTC) 1850:23:50, 18 February 2024 (UTC) 1836:23:46, 18 February 2024 (UTC) 1808:23:43, 18 February 2024 (UTC) 1793:23:34, 18 February 2024 (UTC) 1778:23:22, 18 February 2024 (UTC) 1764:23:18, 18 February 2024 (UTC) 1727:01:40, 18 February 2024 (UTC) 1711:01:24, 18 February 2024 (UTC) 1685:01:19, 18 February 2024 (UTC) 1666:01:15, 18 February 2024 (UTC) 1648:because it is presentational. 1636:23:03, 17 February 2024 (UTC) 1621:22:40, 17 February 2024 (UTC) 1600:03:51, 17 February 2024 (UTC) 1432:22:33, 18 February 2024 (UTC) 1411:22:26, 18 February 2024 (UTC) 1374:22:15, 18 February 2024 (UTC) 1344:21:55, 18 February 2024 (UTC) 1308:21:30, 18 February 2024 (UTC) 1285:01:12, 18 February 2024 (UTC) 1249:currently says we should use 1241:00:56, 18 February 2024 (UTC) 1195:00:38, 18 February 2024 (UTC) 1172:22:31, 16 February 2024 (UTC) 1152:22:19, 16 February 2024 (UTC) 1132:22:03, 16 February 2024 (UTC) 1060:21:45, 16 February 2024 (UTC) 1037:23:22, 14 February 2024 (UTC) 1019:23:11, 14 February 2024 (UTC) 990:18:38, 15 February 2024 (UTC) 962:00:09, 15 February 2024 (UTC) 947:23:18, 14 February 2024 (UTC) 925:23:16, 14 February 2024 (UTC) 910:22:56, 14 February 2024 (UTC) 871:23:04, 14 February 2024 (UTC) 833:19:12, 14 February 2024 (UTC) 818:19:05, 14 February 2024 (UTC) 802:18:59, 14 February 2024 (UTC) 776:18:48, 14 February 2024 (UTC) 760:02:02, 14 February 2024 (UTC) 718:01:30, 14 February 2024 (UTC) 682:23:40, 13 February 2024 (UTC) 666:22:11, 13 February 2024 (UTC) 631:21:36, 13 February 2024 (UTC) 615:04:16, 13 February 2024 (UTC) 572:22:55, 12 February 2024 (UTC) 554:22:49, 12 February 2024 (UTC) 524:22:44, 12 February 2024 (UTC) 491:22:24, 12 February 2024 (UTC) 450:22:13, 12 February 2024 (UTC) 428:21:32, 12 February 2024 (UTC) 413:21:26, 12 February 2024 (UTC) 363:21:18, 12 February 2024 (UTC) 344:21:16, 12 February 2024 (UTC) 308:indicates that we should use 301:21:11, 12 February 2024 (UTC) 283:21:06, 12 February 2024 (UTC) 2265:My mistake, this is covered 2162:On that last point, see the 1519:by the Arbitration Committee 2773:21:31, 23 August 2024 (UTC) 2758:19:22, 23 August 2024 (UTC) 2743:18:04, 23 August 2024 (UTC) 2729:17:54, 23 August 2024 (UTC) 2711:17:52, 23 August 2024 (UTC) 2688:17:12, 23 August 2024 (UTC) 2465:04:55, 28 August 2024 (UTC) 2443:02:17, 28 August 2024 (UTC) 1532:even if the edits seem good 1473:any page on Knowledge (XXG) 1081:for emphasis. That is what 532:per its documentation: see 211:is the wikitext version of 2797: 2668:04:29, 4 August 2024 (UTC) 2645:02:09, 4 August 2024 (UTC) 2555:Exceptions to limited bans 2284:Knowledge (XXG):User pages 1746:It's in a footnote in the 1108:File:Diagram of IGNORE.svg 288:We're talking about this: 247:template. Italics markup ( 45: 2616:17:37, 30 July 2024 (UTC) 2598:01:08, 29 July 2024 (UTC) 2578:18:37, 28 July 2024 (UTC) 2548:17:12, 30 July 2024 (UTC) 2534:03:18, 29 July 2024 (UTC) 2524:01:08, 29 July 2024 (UTC) 2487:18:26, 28 July 2024 (UTC) 2427:16:57, 27 July 2024 (UTC) 2374:07:04, 21 July 2024 (UTC) 2356:22:23, 20 July 2024 (UTC) 2338:16:35, 20 July 2024 (UTC) 2319:16:26, 20 July 2024 (UTC) 2296:16:02, 20 July 2024 (UTC) 2020:23:09, 23 June 2024 (UTC) 1983:10:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC) 1231:where I'm coming from. -- 1177:isn't a "better" article. 460:this exception <u: --> 218:is not meant for empahsis 2273:Please do not modify it. 2246:14:37, 9 July 2024 (UTC) 2231:08:29, 9 July 2024 (UTC) 2210:05:55, 9 July 2024 (UTC) 2193:05:27, 9 July 2024 (UTC) 2176:16:27, 7 July 2024 (UTC) 2158:14:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC) 2130:08:15, 7 July 2024 (UTC) 2104:01:44, 7 July 2024 (UTC) 2078:01:21, 7 July 2024 (UTC) 2055:00:56, 7 July 2024 (UTC) 528:The anchor template was 2504:and the fifth example: 580:has said we should use 1525:this as italic markup. 391: 182:Lowercase sigmabot III 36:keep cool when editing 2715:I agree with isaacl. 418:do not understand. -- 2624:Addition to PROXYING 1822:(and, yeah, I wrote 1362:Help:Wikitext#Format 706:Help:Wikitext#Format 2717:Firefangledfeathers 2633:Firefangledfeathers 2604:Firefangledfeathers 2586:Firefangledfeathers 2512:Firefangledfeathers 2325:Firefangledfeathers 2307:Firefangledfeathers 2092:Firefangledfeathers 1257:...</strong: --> 1089:...</strong: --> 891:...</strong: --> 731:...</strong: --> 469:is for things like 461:does not</u: --> 324:...</strong: --> 2405:From the table in 1492:violations of the 1218:And when we're in 1100:substantive enough 1064:Let me try again: 638:WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU 313:for emphasis over 2387: 2386: 2229: 2208: 2156: 2053: 1981: 1265:WP:LOCALCONSENSUS 992: 935: 873: 189: 188: 154: 153: 66: 65: 2788: 2682: 2610: 2368: 2332: 2290: 2275: 2262: 2223: 2221: 2207: 2150: 2140:by the community 2047: 2045: 2034: 1975: 1973: 1910: 1899: 1861: 1860: 1859: 1825: 1713: 1702: 1668: 1657: 1647: 1413: 1402: 1346: 1335: 1321: 1316: 1287: 1276: 1258: 1253: 1197: 1186: 1160: 1134: 1123: 1090: 1085: 1076: 1072: 979: 929: 901: 892: 887: 860: 762: 751: 732: 727: 668: 657: 617: 606: 588: 584: 556: 545: 493: 482: 468: 404: 388: 383: 379: 374: 346: 335: 325: 316: 312: 274: 255: 250: 246: 234: 215: 210: 202: 184: 168: 89: 88: 78: 70: 58: 23: 16: 2796: 2795: 2791: 2790: 2789: 2787: 2786: 2785: 2680: 2676: 2626: 2608: 2558: 2510: 2475: 2407:WP:BLOCKBANDIFF 2392: 2366: 2330: 2288: 2271: 2260: 2217: 2041: 2030: 2028: 1969: 1897: 1891: 1857: 1823: 1700: 1694: 1655: 1649: 1645: 1460: 1400: 1394: 1355:basis, because 1333: 1327: 1274: 1268: 1256:<strong: --> 1252:...</em: --> 1184: 1178: 1158: 1121: 1115: 1088:<strong: --> 1084:...</em: --> 1074: 899: 890:<strong: --> 886:...</em: --> 749: 743: 730:<strong: --> 726:...</em: --> 655: 649: 604: 598: 589:) for emphasis 586: 583:...</em: --> 543: 537: 506:? If there are 499:Template:Anchor 480: 474: 464:caught my eye: 402: 381: 372: 333: 327: 323:<strong: --> 314: 311:...</em: --> 272: 248: 244: 236: 233:...</em: --> 208: 196: 194: 192:Semantic markup 180: 169: 163: 83: 62: 61: 54: 50: 12: 11: 5: 2794: 2792: 2784: 2783: 2782: 2781: 2780: 2779: 2778: 2777: 2776: 2775: 2675: 2672: 2671: 2670: 2625: 2622: 2621: 2620: 2619: 2618: 2557: 2552: 2551: 2550: 2536: 2526: 2509: 2508: 2502: 2494: 2474: 2471: 2470: 2469: 2468: 2467: 2411: 2410: 2403: 2400:page on blocks 2391: 2388: 2385: 2384: 2383: 2382: 2381: 2380: 2379: 2378: 2377: 2376: 2281: 2277: 2276: 2267: 2266: 2259: 2256: 2255: 2254: 2253: 2252: 2251: 2250: 2249: 2248: 2180: 2179: 2178: 2132: 2106: 2080: 2027: 2024: 2023: 2022: 1961:WP:COSMETICBOT 1948: 1947: 1946: 1945: 1944: 1943: 1942: 1941: 1940: 1939: 1938: 1937: 1936: 1935: 1934: 1933: 1932: 1931: 1930: 1929: 1888: 1812:I changed it: 1741: 1740: 1739: 1738: 1737: 1736: 1735: 1734: 1733: 1732: 1731: 1730: 1729: 1692: 1638: 1589: 1588: 1587: 1578: 1567: 1557: 1547: 1537: 1526: 1522:can appeal ... 1513: 1499: 1478: 1459: 1456: 1455: 1454: 1453: 1452: 1451: 1450: 1449: 1448: 1447: 1446: 1445: 1444: 1443: 1442: 1441: 1440: 1439: 1438: 1437: 1436: 1435: 1434: 1320:...</i: --> 1315:...</b: --> 1216: 1154: 1080: 1071:...</b: --> 1047: 1046: 1045: 1044: 1043: 1042: 1041: 1040: 1039: 1003: 999: 998: 997: 996: 995: 994: 993: 927: 880: 839: 781: 780: 779: 778: 740: 701: 700: 699: 698: 697: 696: 695: 694: 693: 692: 691: 690: 689: 688: 687: 686: 685: 684: 643: 596: 467:...</u: --> 438: 437: 436: 435: 434: 433: 432: 431: 430: 387:...</b: --> 378:...</i: --> 254:...</i: --> 242: 214:...</b: --> 193: 190: 187: 186: 174: 171: 170: 165: 161: 159: 156: 155: 152: 151: 146: 140: 139: 134: 129: 123: 122: 117: 112: 106: 105: 100: 95: 85: 84: 79: 73: 64: 63: 60: 59: 51: 46: 43: 24: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2793: 2774: 2770: 2766: 2761: 2760: 2759: 2755: 2751: 2746: 2745: 2744: 2740: 2736: 2732: 2731: 2730: 2726: 2722: 2718: 2714: 2713: 2712: 2708: 2704: 2700: 2696: 2692: 2691: 2690: 2689: 2686: 2683: 2673: 2669: 2665: 2661: 2657: 2653: 2649: 2648: 2647: 2646: 2642: 2638: 2634: 2630: 2623: 2617: 2614: 2611: 2605: 2601: 2600: 2599: 2595: 2591: 2587: 2582: 2581: 2580: 2579: 2575: 2571: 2567: 2565: 2556: 2553: 2549: 2545: 2541: 2537: 2535: 2532: 2527: 2525: 2521: 2517: 2513: 2507: 2503: 2500: 2496: 2495: 2491: 2490: 2489: 2488: 2484: 2480: 2472: 2466: 2462: 2458: 2454: 2450: 2449:archived here 2446: 2445: 2444: 2440: 2436: 2431: 2430: 2429: 2428: 2424: 2420: 2416: 2408: 2404: 2401: 2397: 2396: 2395: 2389: 2375: 2372: 2369: 2363: 2359: 2358: 2357: 2353: 2349: 2345: 2341: 2340: 2339: 2336: 2333: 2326: 2322: 2321: 2320: 2316: 2312: 2308: 2304: 2300: 2299: 2298: 2297: 2294: 2291: 2285: 2279: 2278: 2274: 2269: 2268: 2264: 2263: 2257: 2247: 2243: 2239: 2234: 2233: 2232: 2227: 2222: 2220: 2219:Novem Linguae 2213: 2212: 2211: 2206: 2205:Seraphimblade 2201: 2196: 2195: 2194: 2190: 2186: 2181: 2177: 2173: 2169: 2165: 2161: 2160: 2159: 2154: 2149: 2145: 2141: 2137: 2133: 2131: 2127: 2123: 2119: 2115: 2111: 2110:Novem Linguae 2107: 2105: 2101: 2097: 2093: 2089: 2085: 2081: 2079: 2075: 2071: 2067: 2063: 2059: 2058: 2057: 2056: 2051: 2046: 2044: 2043:Novem Linguae 2038: 2033: 2025: 2021: 2017: 2013: 2009: 2003: 1999: 1995: 1991: 1987: 1986: 1985: 1984: 1979: 1974: 1972: 1971:Novem Linguae 1966: 1962: 1958: 1953: 1928: 1924: 1920: 1915: 1912: 1911: 1909: 1905: 1901: 1900: 1895: 1889: 1887: 1883: 1879: 1875: 1874: 1873: 1869: 1865: 1853: 1852: 1851: 1847: 1843: 1839: 1838: 1837: 1833: 1829: 1824:''seriously'' 1821: 1817: 1814: 1811: 1810: 1809: 1805: 1801: 1796: 1795: 1794: 1790: 1786: 1781: 1780: 1779: 1775: 1771: 1767: 1766: 1765: 1761: 1757: 1753: 1749: 1745: 1742: 1728: 1724: 1720: 1715: 1714: 1712: 1708: 1704: 1703: 1698: 1690: 1688: 1687: 1686: 1682: 1678: 1674: 1670: 1669: 1667: 1663: 1659: 1658: 1653: 1643: 1639: 1637: 1633: 1629: 1624: 1623: 1622: 1618: 1614: 1610: 1609: 1603: 1602: 1601: 1597: 1593: 1590: 1585: 1583: 1579: 1575: 1573: 1568: 1565: 1563: 1558: 1555: 1553: 1548: 1545: 1543: 1538: 1535: 1533: 1527: 1523: 1521: 1520: 1514: 1511: 1507: 1505: 1500: 1497: 1495: 1491: 1487: 1484: 1479: 1476: 1474: 1469: 1468: 1466: 1465: 1464: 1463: 1462: 1461: 1457: 1433: 1429: 1425: 1421: 1420: 1415: 1414: 1412: 1408: 1404: 1403: 1398: 1392: 1391:Help:Wikitext 1388: 1387:Help:Wikitext 1384: 1380: 1377: 1376: 1375: 1371: 1367: 1363: 1358: 1354: 1353: 1348: 1347: 1345: 1341: 1337: 1336: 1331: 1326: 1311: 1310: 1309: 1305: 1301: 1297: 1293: 1289: 1288: 1286: 1282: 1278: 1277: 1272: 1266: 1262: 1248: 1244: 1243: 1242: 1238: 1234: 1230: 1226: 1221: 1217: 1214: 1209: 1205: 1204: 1199: 1198: 1196: 1192: 1188: 1187: 1182: 1175: 1174: 1173: 1169: 1165: 1155: 1153: 1149: 1145: 1141: 1136: 1135: 1133: 1129: 1125: 1124: 1119: 1113: 1109: 1105: 1101: 1097: 1095: 1093: 1078: 1067: 1066:The HTML spec 1063: 1062: 1061: 1057: 1053: 1048: 1038: 1034: 1030: 1026: 1022: 1021: 1020: 1016: 1012: 1008: 1004: 1000: 991: 987: 983: 977: 973: 969: 965: 964: 963: 959: 955: 950: 949: 948: 944: 940: 933: 932:edit conflict 928: 926: 922: 918: 913: 912: 911: 907: 903: 902: 897: 882: 878: 875: 874: 872: 868: 864: 858: 854: 850: 847: 843: 840: 836: 835: 834: 830: 826: 821: 820: 819: 815: 811: 806: 805: 804: 803: 799: 795: 789: 785: 777: 773: 769: 764: 763: 761: 757: 753: 752: 747: 738: 736: 722: 721: 720: 719: 715: 711: 707: 683: 679: 675: 670: 669: 667: 663: 659: 658: 653: 647: 641: 639: 634: 633: 632: 628: 624: 619: 618: 616: 612: 608: 607: 602: 594: 592: 585:(and not use 579: 575: 574: 573: 569: 565: 561: 558: 557: 555: 551: 547: 546: 541: 535: 531: 527: 526: 525: 521: 517: 513: 509: 505: 500: 496: 495: 494: 492: 488: 484: 483: 478: 472: 463: 456: 453: 452: 451: 447: 443: 439: 429: 425: 421: 416: 415: 414: 410: 406: 405: 400: 395: 390: 366: 365: 364: 360: 356: 352: 348: 347: 345: 341: 337: 336: 331: 320: 307: 304: 303: 302: 298: 294: 290: 287: 286: 285: 284: 280: 276: 275: 270: 265: 261: 259: 240: 229: 223: 219: 206: 205:Semantic HTML 200: 191: 183: 178: 173: 172: 158: 157: 150: 147: 145: 142: 141: 138: 135: 133: 130: 128: 125: 124: 121: 118: 116: 113: 111: 108: 107: 104: 101: 99: 96: 94: 91: 90: 87: 86: 82: 77: 72: 71: 68: 57: 53: 52: 49: 44: 41: 37: 33: 29: 25: 22: 18: 17: 2677: 2627: 2559: 2476: 2412: 2393: 2280: 2272: 2218: 2199: 2164:comment here 2042: 2029: 2007: 2001: 1998:MOS:EMPHASIS 1993: 1970: 1949: 1892: 1819: 1743: 1695: 1650: 1641: 1606: 1581: 1571: 1561: 1551: 1541: 1531: 1518: 1516: 1503: 1489: 1482: 1472: 1417: 1395: 1350: 1328: 1269: 1228: 1224: 1219: 1212: 1207: 1201: 1179: 1116: 1024: 967: 894: 881:in mainspace 848: 845: 790: 786: 782: 744: 702: 650: 599: 538: 511: 507: 475: 470: 457: 454: 397: 369: 350: 328: 267: 258:semantically 203:the HTML is 195: 176: 80: 67: 2681:Doug Weller 2629:WP:PROXYING 2609:Doug Weller 2497:the intro: 2367:Doug Weller 2331:Doug Weller 2303:Doug Weller 2289:Doug Weller 1577:community." 1251:<em: --> 1112:ignore them 1083:<em: --> 885:<em: --> 861:Revised. -- 725:<em: --> 640:and graphs 582:<em: --> 530:substituted 310:<em: --> 232:<em: --> 40:don't panic 2765:Tryptofish 2540:Tryptofish 2362:Tryptofish 2348:Tryptofish 2185:Dronebogus 2012:Tryptofish 1996:appear is 1990:MOS:ACCESS 1957:MOS:ACCESS 1919:Tryptofish 1906:· he/him) 1864:Tryptofish 1828:Tryptofish 1785:Tryptofish 1756:Tryptofish 1709:· he/him) 1664:· he/him) 1613:Tryptofish 1608:ipse dixit 1481:Reverting 1424:Tryptofish 1419:ipse dixit 1409:· he/him) 1366:Tryptofish 1352:ipse dixit 1342:· he/him) 1319:<i: --> 1314:<b: --> 1300:Tryptofish 1283:· he/him) 1233:Tryptofish 1203:ipse dixit 1193:· he/him) 1164:Tryptofish 1144:Tryptofish 1130:· he/him) 1070:<b: --> 1052:Tryptofish 1029:Tryptofish 982:Tryptofish 972:Tryptofish 939:Tryptofish 908:· he/him) 863:Tryptofish 853:Tryptofish 810:Tryptofish 768:Tryptofish 758:· he/him) 674:Tryptofish 664:· he/him) 646:WT:MOSTEXT 623:Tryptofish 613:· he/him) 591:since 2011 564:Tryptofish 552:· he/him) 516:Tryptofish 489:· he/him) 466:<u: --> 420:Tryptofish 411:· he/him) 386:<b: --> 377:<i: --> 355:Tryptofish 342:· he/him) 293:Tryptofish 281:· he/him) 253:<i: --> 228:accessible 213:<b: --> 199:Tryptofish 149:Archive 11 144:Archive 10 2735:Barkeep49 2697:includes 1820:seriously 1673:this edit 1646:'''...''' 1552:direction 1486:vandalism 1383:guideline 1075:'''...''' 382:'''...''' 315:'''...''' 226:The most 209:'''...''' 137:Archive 9 132:Archive 8 127:Archive 7 120:Archive 6 115:Archive 5 110:Archive 4 103:Archive 3 98:Archive 2 93:Archive 1 2725:contribs 2641:contribs 2594:contribs 2520:contribs 2457:Johnuniq 2435:Epachamo 2419:Epachamo 2315:contribs 2100:contribs 2088:WP:UNBAN 2032:Drbogdan 1748:WP:BANEX 1504:does not 1379:MOS:TEXT 1263:. (C.f. 1261:MOS:TEXT 1247:MOS:TEXT 1104:MOS:TEXT 879:Not many 735:MOS:TEXT 710:Johnuniq 578:MOS:EMPH 471:seplling 442:Johnuniq 396:. Best, 384:(equals 375:(equals 319:MOS:BOLD 306:MOS:EMPH 266:. Best, 222:MOS:EMPH 216:, which 81:Archives 48:Shortcut 2570:Emdosis 2479:Emdosis 2344:WP:TBAN 2168:DeCausa 2122:DeCausa 2084:WP:CBAN 2060:As per 1898:Blaster 1701:Blaster 1656:Blaster 1490:obvious 1483:obvious 1401:Blaster 1334:Blaster 1275:Blaster 1185:Blaster 1122:Blaster 900:Blaster 750:Blaster 656:Blaster 648:. Best, 605:Blaster 595:current 587:''...'' 544:Blaster 481:Blaster 403:Blaster 373:''...'' 334:Blaster 273:Blaster 249:''...'' 177:90 days 2750:isaacl 2703:isaacl 2660:isaacl 2453:WP:IAR 2238:isaacl 2198:least 2070:isaacl 2002:really 1878:isaacl 1842:isaacl 1800:isaacl 1770:isaacl 1719:isaacl 1677:isaacl 1628:isaacl 1592:isaacl 1229:that's 1225:really 1159:button 1011:isaacl 954:isaacl 917:isaacl 825:isaacl 794:isaacl 504:WP:TfD 380:), or 351:really 317:, and 56:WT:BAN 38:, and 28:policy 1894:House 1697:House 1652:House 1397:House 1381:is a 1330:House 1271:House 1254:(and 1181:House 1161:: --> 1118:House 1077:) is 1068:says 896:House 746:House 652:House 642:still 601:House 540:House 477:House 399:House 330:House 269:House 251:, or 2769:talk 2754:talk 2739:talk 2721:talk 2707:talk 2685:talk 2664:talk 2637:talk 2613:talk 2590:talk 2574:talk 2544:talk 2531:Zero 2516:talk 2483:talk 2461:talk 2439:talk 2423:talk 2415:here 2371:talk 2352:talk 2335:talk 2311:talk 2301:Hey 2293:talk 2242:talk 2226:talk 2200:said 2189:talk 2172:talk 2153:talk 2126:talk 2096:talk 2086:and 2074:talk 2050:talk 2016:talk 2008:here 1994:does 1978:talk 1923:talk 1904:talk 1882:talk 1868:talk 1846:talk 1832:talk 1804:talk 1789:talk 1774:talk 1760:talk 1723:talk 1707:talk 1691:only 1681:talk 1662:talk 1632:talk 1617:talk 1596:talk 1584:,... 1572:from 1562:then 1542:must 1428:talk 1407:talk 1370:talk 1340:talk 1317:and 1304:talk 1281:talk 1237:talk 1220:that 1191:talk 1168:talk 1157:< 1148:talk 1128:talk 1086:and 1056:talk 1033:talk 1027:. -- 1025:that 1015:talk 986:talk 976:talk 958:talk 943:talk 921:talk 906:talk 867:talk 857:talk 851:. -- 829:talk 814:talk 798:talk 772:talk 756:talk 728:and 714:talk 678:talk 662:talk 627:talk 611:talk 568:talk 559:OK. 550:talk 520:talk 512:real 508:real 487:talk 446:talk 424:talk 409:talk 359:talk 340:talk 297:talk 279:talk 2148:Joe 1967:. – 1955:in 1671:In 1213:why 1079:not 739:all 243:... 2771:) 2756:) 2741:) 2727:) 2723:/ 2709:) 2666:) 2658:. 2643:) 2639:/ 2596:) 2592:/ 2576:) 2546:) 2522:) 2518:/ 2485:) 2463:) 2441:) 2425:) 2354:) 2317:) 2313:/ 2286:? 2244:) 2191:) 2174:) 2142:, 2138:, 2128:) 2102:) 2098:/ 2076:) 2018:) 1925:) 1884:) 1870:) 1862:-- 1848:) 1834:) 1806:) 1791:) 1776:) 1762:) 1725:) 1683:) 1634:) 1619:) 1598:) 1430:) 1385:, 1372:) 1306:) 1267:.) 1239:) 1208:is 1170:) 1150:) 1142:-- 1058:) 1035:) 1017:) 988:) 980:-- 960:) 945:) 923:) 869:) 831:) 816:) 808:-- 800:) 774:) 716:) 708:? 680:) 672:-- 629:) 570:) 522:) 448:) 426:) 361:) 299:) 245:}} 239:em 237:{{ 224:, 207:. 2767:( 2752:( 2737:( 2719:( 2705:( 2662:( 2635:( 2602:@ 2588:( 2572:( 2566:. 2560:" 2542:( 2514:( 2501:, 2481:( 2459:( 2437:( 2421:( 2402:. 2360:@ 2350:( 2323:@ 2309:( 2240:( 2228:) 2224:( 2187:( 2170:( 2155:) 2151:( 2124:( 2094:( 2072:( 2052:) 2048:( 2014:( 1980:) 1976:( 1921:( 1902:( 1880:( 1866:( 1844:( 1830:( 1802:( 1787:( 1772:( 1758:( 1721:( 1705:( 1679:( 1660:( 1630:( 1615:( 1594:( 1534:. 1496:. 1426:( 1405:( 1368:( 1338:( 1302:( 1279:( 1235:( 1189:( 1166:( 1146:( 1126:( 1114:. 1054:( 1031:( 1013:( 984:( 974:( 956:( 941:( 934:) 930:( 919:( 904:( 865:( 855:( 827:( 812:( 796:( 770:( 754:( 712:( 676:( 660:( 625:( 609:( 566:( 548:( 518:( 485:( 444:( 422:( 407:( 357:( 338:( 295:( 277:( 241:| 201:: 197:@ 42:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge (XXG)

talk:Banning policy - Knowledge (XXG)

Index