Wikipedia talk:List of banned users
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This page was nominated for deletion on 14 November 2006. The result of the discussion was keep. |
[edit] Civility suggestion
I think this article is historically important, especially for new users or new admins who may not know the history of particular banned users. It's also a good record of how the community banning process works. What I feel is wrong is the summaary descriptions under the "Banned by the Wikipedia community." This section borders on personal attacks on the banned users and in some cases seems like a place where people aggrieved by the banned user have edited the summary to settle a score. I think it would be more productive and look less like a rap sheet if, as suggested above, we simply link to the Arbcom or WP:ANI archived discussion where the consensus for the community ban was decided. This would make this page appear more impartial. There are a lot of negative adjectives, hyperbole, and allegations presented as fact in this section. It's entire unnecessary if we have a link to where the community came to a consensus that the individual should be banned. Thanks. —Malber (talk • contribs • game) 20:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- We DO just link to the A.C. cases where they have been banned. 68.39.174.238 03:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- Not here: Wikipedia:List_of_banned_users#Banned_by_the_Wikipedia_community. These are all basically attack paragraphs. Links to the ANI discussions would appear more impartial. —Malber (talk • contribs • game) 14:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- There also appears to be a number of people listed as indef-blocked, which, according to policy, is not the same as banning. Without a reference to the discussion banning the user, or the block log, it's not just an attack page, it's an inaccurate attack page. Argyriou (talk) 17:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
-
The summaries need constant cleanup and monitoring. However, the act of explaining a ban is not inherently a personal attack. If someone's banned for posting attack pages on ED, and I say "User:Foo posts attack pages on ED", am I guilty of violating WP:NPA? No. It's not a personal attack, it's a simple statement of fact. I think the circumstances behind community bans merit a short explanation, so those interested can clearly see what led up to the ban. Just linking to an ANI discussion or a block log entry doesn't always clear things up, or give a clear picture of what happened before and after the ban. szyslak (t, c) 09:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- On what authority can anyone say that User:Foo did X? Better to link to the ANI discussion and let the reader make up their own mind if consensus was met instead of what looks like a list of allegations and hearsay. See the entry for Cindery. This user was banned based on circumstantial evidence and assumptions that this person had an account on ED. —Malber (talk • contribs • game) 19:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
It looks like Jimbo lifted the ban on MyWikiBiz ... this may need to be updated. Blueboy96 04:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
