The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the discussion was Delete. I have read all the arguments here and at this discussion. The raw count is delete 35, keep 33, but in weighing the arguments I find those of the delete side more compelling than those of the keepers. I did not count Jimbo's opinion as one of those supporting delete, though I did read his comment. Here's why I think this discussion shows consensus to delete. The evidence that this page is potentially harmful, made by several, to me outweighs the arguments that the page is "useful". I don't doubt that it is, but admins can still see the page history and read it there, and it has been stated that there are other ways of compiling this information. I see no strong evidence that this project will be harmed with the loss of this badly-maintained page. I do see the possibility of harm if it is allowed to continue. I am not swayed either by the minority who want to keep this page as a public pillory for those who have sinned against Wikipedia. Bertolt Brecht may have said "grub first, then ethics", but we as encyclopedists need to maintain the moral high ground, both for our own self-esteem and to maintain our reputation in the wider world. John (talk) 22:17, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I recently started some proposals for change at the List of banned users, my first change suggested was that the entire list was deleted and I said that I would nominate the page for deletion if there was significant support. From what I've seen, there has been and I invite participants in this discussion, along with the closing administrator, to read the comments there.
In summary, I believe the List of banned users should be deleted because its costs severely outweigh the benefits. There are about 450 names in the community bannned list, 89% are over 2 years old and nearly 60% are over 5 years old. There are names on that list from 2003, over 10 years old. Wikipedia has significantly changed in that period. At present, these names are kept forever, with no prospect of removal. Consider that some names on this list are people's real names, recorded forever as "banned".
Each community ban has a bit of commentary associated with it. These include phrases like "too unstable", "shocking rampage", "competence issues", "made noxious and ridiculous claims". The commentary is written at times of high tension and often by non-neutral parties. It's inappropriate to keep such commentary on users, especially after they've left.
There are 3 arguably useful bits of information on this list, confirmation that the user is banned, the date it happened and a link to the discussion. We have other places to record the information, however, Arbcom bans are recorded at Arbcom cases, the block log is often updated, the users page and talk page, a fully searchable Adminstrators' Noticeboard, sockpuppet investigations pages, sockpuppet categories and more.
NB: This is the 6th nomination of this page. Looking at the previous nominations, they were often made by people with a vested interest and SNOW closed. As I said before, there has been some discussion on the talk page of the list, sufficient to lead me create this nomination. Please do take the time to read it. WormTT(talk) 09:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I obviously support deletion as nominator. I've been an administrator for 4 years, and on Arbcom for 2 and not once have I had need to use this list. Whenever I've needed the information, I've used other sources, primarily user talk pages or search functions of AN, Arbcom or SPI. Publicly keeping what can only be described as "negative information" on people for over 10 years is unacceptable, no matter what they've done. WormTT(talk) 09:31, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, I'd like to include this statement from User:Jimbo Wales at Wikimania 2014 "A lot of users cost more than they're worth, and they should be encouraged to leave, and not in a bad way. One of the things I've always believed is letting people walk away with dignity. We don't have to shame them and scream at them and make them leave and then they're sad and annoyed and then they make sock puppets and then they come back and harass us for years."video This list does not allow people to walk away with dignity. This list causes more problems than it solves. WormTT(talk) 08:16, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is this last bit "pulling the ol' Jimbo card"? As in: Jimbo might endorse your side of the dispute, so we should all give that a lot of extra weight? Tut, tut. Doctalk08:26, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Jimbo does endorse my side (per Benmoore's argument below), but the statement resonated strongly with my point of view and was worth mentioning. WormTT(talk) 08:54, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is not even a rough consensus to delete here. So... we can keep it open for many weeks; but there still will not be a consensus to delete the list, for the 7th time. And, we must keep it if there is no solid consensus to delete it. Therefore the only viable option is to modify how it is maintained. Doctalk09:18, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This has only been open just over 24 hours, consensus is still emerging. Numerically, I agree it's tending (but not overwhelmingly) towards keeping, but I'd say there are more and stronger arguments to delete. It's not an MfD I'd be keen on closing. WormTT(talk) 09:42, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The very fact that this is the sixth time the page has been nominated for deletion suggests that deleting is a bad idea. If the page were really harmful, and any harm was obvious and uncontroversial, then it would have been deleted long ago. ImprovingWiki (talk) 09:31, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. This only demonstrates that so called wikipedia community is not mature and not sane enough to stop harming itself and its site by stopping an absolutely needless bullying. 103.245.88.248 (talk) 04:28, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please do have a look at the previous nominations before making that assumption. 3 of the previous 5 were made "in bad faith by a sockpuppet". The facts that consensus can change and that there has been significant support on the talk page means that this warrants a genuine discussion, and dismissing it as "it would have been done" is a poor argument. WormTT(talk) 09:41, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If your suggestion is that socks nominating the page for deletion would bias the resulting discussion, then I'm not necessarily sure that it would be correct. I have seen cases where an article was nominated for deletion by a sock, the sock was eventually discovered and blocked, and the article wound up being deleted in the end anyway. ImprovingWiki (talk) 09:45, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've glanced at them, but I'm still not sure what your point is. The fact that you would agree with the socks of the banned users that the page should be deleted is not particularly encouraging. ImprovingWiki (talk) 10:08, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, you're dismissing my arguments on the basis that "banned users" agree with them? I suggest you focus on actually discussing why this page should or should not be deleted and stop trying to discredit the nominator. This essay may help you. WormTT(talk) 10:12, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not dismissing your arguments for that reason alone, simply suggesting that agreeing with socks of banned users is problematic. As I said, there would have to be a better reason for deleting the page than any negative consequences it might have for people who have been banned from the site. ImprovingWiki (talk) 10:18, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Consensus can change. Just because the page has been nominated for the second, the third, the sixth, the hundredth, or the millionth time does not necessarily mean that the community will obviously spam Keep and Speedy Keep because of the amazing MFD track record of the page. Community decisions aren't necessarily written in stone, as are the policies and guidelines that govern Wikipedia, so why should this be any different? --k6ka (talk | contribs) 23:17, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the grounds that the page is useful, and that people are responsible for their own actions and the consequences thereof. Deleting the page would be a drastic step, and there would have to be a better basis for it than any alleged negative consequences the page's existence has for the banned users. ImprovingWiki (talk) 09:42, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - List provides an idea. People who have been suggested about site ban, they would like to know about others who have been banned from en.wiki. You get some idea about the consequences that would lead to site ban. In many ways this list is helpful. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:58, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OccultZone, could you clarify a bit? Is your reason to keep, then, that users who might get banned may instead use this page as a "research tool" and thus learn how to behave appropriately? I'm not sure how likely that is, but, even in that case, why is this needed for that purpose when Wikipedia:Banning policy, WP:CONDUCT and other such actual policy pages exist for such "research"? You seem to be saying the little mini-essays added about individual users are the most useful thing about the page, when even several voting and commenting to keep (here and in the talkpage discussion) seem to see them as problematic, and agree they could be removed, leaving a name and link to ban discussion only. Begoontalk10:33, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my comments on the talk page. I am supportive of changing this into a less descriptive list per option #2 of the talk page. The list can be improved; its outright removal is to me unnecessary revisionism for no good convincing reason. Doctalk10:22, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It helps to have a list of users which have been banned, so the community knows. Users whose names do not belong on the list can be removed, and other problems can be dealt with by editing. Users who do not wish to have their name on this page should not do things they knew would get them banned. --Jayron3210:38, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Changing vote to weak delete. While I do find the list useful, others have given good alternative sources for the same information (categories, LTA, or users webpage). I have no other reason really strongly to keep this, and am thus changing my vote to "delete". --Jayron3216:35, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nominator has provided no evidence regarding the supposed "costs" and he and other editors have pointed out how the list is useful. Suggesting search is a possible replacement disregards how bad search is when it comes to noticeboards. A less descriptive list removing inflammatory phrases is the way to go. --NeilNtalk to me12:25, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Serves no useful purpose. The editors are banned, so even if they return under another name this list is not helpful. If there are still issues with such editors via sockpuppetry etc., then WP:LTA is a more relevant venue. I am particularly wary of the fact, per nom, that many of these entries are under real names and contain non-neutral or even pejorative language. If this MfD does not result in a Delete outcome, I strongly recommend a refactoring of it per option #2 on the talk page. Black Kite (talk)12:26, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The given rationale appears to tie in closely with the right to be forgotten, which Jimbo was quoted as saying would lead to "an internet riddled with memory holes". A more salient point is that while WTT says keeping … "negative information" on people for over 10 years is unacceptable, it should be noted that these are accounts rather than people — in the case of a renamed banned user who edited under their real name, I'd have no issues with the renamer updating the relevant username in this list at their discretion (not necessarily with a note, as some have now). benmoore12:29, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but that's just profoundly unconvincing. The rationale of the nomination seems like the right to be forgotten so therefore we should impute the dangers of that policy when looking at whether or not to keep an individual page on wikipedia? No. This is just a discussion on whether or not the usefulness of this page (which near as I can tell has been asserted but not proven) outweighs the real cost of keeping a permanent shit list for banned editors. Whether or not a law which compels search engines and content providers to scrub information at the behest of subjects damages or improves the internet as a whole is not germane. As for the name/account distinction, I'm not sure that's doing as much for us as we might think. First, account names are often personally identifying. If an account name on wikipedia is shared by the same person across multiple sites someone can recover that person's name from a concerted search, correlating information across disparate resources until they get at a first or last name and location. That's not a theoretical concern. And I'm sure we have "noindexed" the page, but that's not really a solution. Second, insofar as an account name is not identifying, the value of that list item drops dramatically. A banned editor will as a rule have to start under a new account, so listing the old account here isn't useful in maintaining that ban. Protonk (talk) 13:34, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to convince anyone, just adding my comments to the discussion. Drawing a parallel between this and "right to be forgotten" is not a rationale for my keep, I'm just pointing out the similarities—perhaps it will save us some time when we realise we are arguing around a pre-existing divisive issue. benmoore14:38, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but strip down to names and links, removing the opinions. It does serve a purpose, but only needs to only serve that purpose and not be a grave dancing page. Dennis12:34, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not convinced, after a lot of consideration, that any explained "utility" of the list outweighs its negative aspects, both as a "name and shame" list with little mini-descriptions of how "dreadful" these people were, and also, as a potential "shrine" for the type of disruptive user who would like to "get on the list" as a trophy to show how "successful" their disruption was. The potential for real names on the list magnifies these concerns greatly. The nominator has explained that other options exist to find out about bans, there is a category which can be maintained and used if desired, and at least one admin has opined on never having had a need to consult this list in several years of dealing with these matters. We just don't need this, and it reflects badly on us as a community, making us appear vengeful and unforgiving. We can do better. If it is, nevertheless, kept, then trim to name, date and link to ban decision. No mini-essays/ad-hoc descriptions. Begoontalk12:51, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As BK notes, the editor is banned, not the account. Listing account names is largely pointless (as the individual accounts are already blocked). As for the usefulness of the page, is this a resource which is regularly referred to by admins and editors to keep tabs on banned users? Are we actually using it or do we just think it looks useful? I'm pretty skeptical that the page "aids institutional memory", partially because that claim is too vague to be falsifiable in any sense but also because I don't see how it does that. I've been an admin here for a long time and I've never heard of this page until today. Not once. I've never seen it linked in AN/I (though I'm sure it has been) nor have I seen anyone comment that they're off to update this list following a community ban discussion (likely because they've never heard of it either). And if this page doesn't serve a useful function, what the fuck is it doing on the encyclopedia? It's certainly not a benign project page. I can learn nothing from it that I wouldn't be able to learn elsewhere and I should I rely on it for information I have to trust that it has been tended properly and kept up to date. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. As for the proposals to trim the list to just names and links, that's "better" in one sense and worse in another. It's better because we no longer have to patrol the page for sections of prose but worse because now the purported usefulness of the page shrinks even further. Again, the accounts are already blocked indefinitely so unless someone shows up on a new account and says "hey, I'm Willy on Wheels!" this list provides no real information on whether or not the human behind the new account is the same. Finally, I'm skeptical of the value which comes from recording bans for all time which were made by what is essentially a very different community. If we banned someone in 2008 and they return to a new account tomorrow, I'm not entirely sure why I should care. Yeah, Banned Mean Banned™ and all that but if no one remembers why they were banned or anyone who does has retired what's the value of saying "I found you on this list so it's off to the cornfield with you"? Protonk (talk) 13:12, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I meant to mention that, actually. I've been an admin for seven years now and I don't think I've ever used that page. If a banned editor is mentioned I tend to look at their userpage for information. Black Kite (talk)18:09, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Off Topic: You unlock this door with the key of imagination...
Delete and salt I can't see where this would be useful at all, aside for the curious newbie. LTAs belong at LTA. Socks belong at SPI. Most people who have added entries here have a vested interest in that user being banned and staying banned. KonveyorBelt15:02, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It does serve a purpose by having all the names in one spot rather than making editors (old or new) search for the other two or three areas where the names might be found. I agree with Dennis Brown that it should be stripped down to names and links, removing the opinions. MarnetteD|Talk15:17, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or, failing that, at least get rid of everything but username and link to discussion, per Dennis. I don't actually see much value in having a list of banned editors; the only ostensible reason is to match socks up with banned masters, but I personally have never understood why that is important or helpful; if they're misbehaving, they should be blocked for their misbehavior regardless of who their master is, and if they're not, who cares?
Expanding on my !vote: I don't think that there's anything wrong with wanting to consider banned users as human beings--albeit human beings that "we" don't want around here anymore--and, in fact, there's quite a bit right about it. This list is something that works against that, and I don't see any actual benefit to us in return that might make up for it. Those that are saying that we need to keep this list for institutional memory or to keep track of banned editors or whatever might do well to ask themselves: why is that a thing that needs to be kept track of? To what end? Sure, this list allows users to more easily locate the names of banned editors--but why do they want to look for banned editors in the first place? Writ Keeper⚇♔15:33, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Bottom line, this list is not needed for administrators to quickly determine if a specific user has been banned. Any elements of the list that may be helpful for identifying long-term abuse should be migrated to WP:LTA. 28bytes (talk) 15:47, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We need to keep a record somewhere. Bans aren't as simple as blocks which are automatically logged, so why not have a page to list bans? If you don't like it, don't look at it. Rcsprinter123(speak) @ 18:15, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't understand why lists of facts and evidence are being targeted recently, I see no policy based reason for it. We need to keep track of these things. If there are specific issues with how it is being used then it can be edited by consensus. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}}17:32, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's shameful that something like this still exists on Wikipedia in 2014. This list is not now, nor has it ever been objective and complete. Instead it amounts to an "pwned" list, in many cases for people to publicly mock their "enemies", and at best to publicly shame and punish those who have been deemed to be not good matches for the project. Wikipedians should not be assholes, and keeping this list that amounts to little more than public shaming makes us just that. The right and good and humane thing to do is to delete. We already have LTA for long-standng problematic trolls. The Master---)Vote Saxon(---17:35, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What about our external link blacklist? That blacklist is used by countless forums and search engines. When we put a site on that it actually is "shamed" in that search engines penalize it and forums block it. Is that also being an asshole?
Saying that someone came to Wikipedia and acted so disruptively that we had to ban them is not a "public shaming", it is a record of shameful behavior in public. These people shamed themselves. Calling us assholes for banning and recording that ban is nothing more than blaming the victim and frankly a personal attack against those that created the page. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}}17:48, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Apart from the fact that websites are not people, the blacklist serves a purpose, because the entry on the blacklist itself is what implements the block on adding links. If a URL is on the blacklist, users are physically prevented from adding it to an article; if it is not on the blacklist, users are not. But here, banned people are banned whether they are listed on this page or not, and the ban is usually indicated (and subsequently looked up) by the standard ban notices that people are so eager to place on the banned user's userpage. What actual purpose does this list of banned editors serve? Many people have said that it's necessary, or that it serves a purpose, but nobody seems to be saying why it's necessary or what that purpose actually is. Writ Keeper⚇♔18:00, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If a user is banned, how do we know when and why and for what reason a person was banned? What is an easy way to find that information, unless we have it all in one place? --Jayron3219:23, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The EL blacklist is a great example because it's a resource which is incredibly valuable and serves a purpose nearly every minute of every day on wikipedia. The list of banned editors doesn't seem to do anything remotely as useful. Protonk (talk) 20:08, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Like I said on the talk page, one banned editor from 8 years ago was socking extensively as recently as last year. The majority of editors are not capable of identifying ban evaders from X years ago, myself included, so why make it even harder for people? —Xezbeth (talk) 18:17, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please clarify the comment you made here? Are you saying that a banned user was socking and vandalizing Wikipedia for a number of years, and only half a dozen editors at most were capable of recognizing the edits as vandalism? Also could you please explain how this list could help to recognize a banned editor, if one isn't sure what editor to look for? 196.201.217.49 (talk) 18:40, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone is capable of figuring out this particular ban evader since they have so many patterns. But if you've never heard of them in the first place, you're not going to suspect anything untoward unless someone familiar with them points it out to you. Historically, only two admins really dealt with SU, both of whom went semi-active at around the same time, meaning SU quietly racked up thousands of edits using hundreds of IPs and sockpuppet accounts over several years because of it. Obviously most of the names on this list aren't going to be doing anything like that, but if someone who was banned years ago decides to cause trouble, only the users who were involved at the time will be able to notice. In my opinion, having all the relevant links in one place should make it easier for people who aren't familiar with them. —Xezbeth (talk) 19:08, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So, in this scenario, how does this list help? Someone who is familiar with the sockmaster in question doesn't need the list, and someone who isn't familiar doesn't realize that they could look at this list or even that there is anything to look up. Either way, this list doesn't help. (And really, that's what LTA is for, anyway; if that's the only reason to keep this list, then the relevant parts should be moved to LTA and the rest deleted. After all, you yourself said that most of this list isn't useful for that purpose.) Writ Keeper⚇♔19:27, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, how does this list help? Isn't it much easier to revert vandalism, any vandalism, versus trying to figure out who did it? Vandalism is vandalism either it is done by a new user or by a sock of an old one. So could you please provide the links to let's say 10 edits out of thousands SU quietly racked up? I'm simply trying to understand what kind of edits you're talking about and how the list helped you in this specific situation. 196.201.217.49 (talk) 19:41, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This word "unfair"... I do not think it means what you think it means. If someone disrupts Wikipedia to the point of being banned, it would be unfair to help them sweep that information under the rug and help them pretend that they hadn't actually done it. There is no relationship between "fairness" and what you seem to think it means.—Kww(talk) 01:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this page is extremely helpful if you have to deal with someone evading a block. It provides confirmation that the individual concerned is definitely banned and provides background for editors unfamiliar with that person. The suggested alternatives in the nomination are not remotely comparable, especially the suggestion that people search the very large administrators' noticeboard archives where a name often crops up frequently instead. The fact that someone was banned years ago doesn't mean they aren't still considered banned, or even that they aren't still evading that ban to edit. Hut 8.520:51, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While I am undecided about the future of the page itself, I strongly agree with Worm (and many other commenters) that at the very least, we should remove the notes/comments and slim it down to a more neutral name(s)-date-diff list. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉21:33, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why is being "neutral" an issue here? Neutrality is a reasonable policy when we want to be fair to two sides in a dispute, each of which has a legitimate position or claim. But banned users don't have a legitimate position or claim. They're prohibited from taking part in the project, and we don't have to be concerned about being "neutral" to them. Of course the information on the page reflects badly on them - and so it should. ImprovingWiki (talk) 03:36, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't disagree more that because an editor is banned, being disrespectful is justified. Link to the discussion closure diff and let it speak for itself. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉03:39, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about being deliberately disrespectful or rude or saying mean things just for the sake of it. It's about providing helpful information, easily available to all users (unlike information buried deep in ANI's archives), that is useful in preventing banned users from editing. If that information reflects poorly on the banned users, then that's too bad, frankly. ImprovingWiki (talk) 03:41, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Unfortunately, this is an essential tool, and, as has been pointed out by others above, some of these editors keep coming back after 7 or 8 years, never mind 2 or 5 years. Bans should be the last resort - it would be nice to see them happen less often - but covering up the fact a ban has happened is not necessary nor indeed deserved. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:32, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Preventing banned users from editing is not bullying. Actually, as the list makes clear, a number of the banned users were banned for harassment, among other things. Harassment is a form of bullying. You're inadvertently making a good case for keeping the list. ImprovingWiki (talk) 05:56, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With particular consideration to SlimVirgin's rationale. There are entries that are under people's real names and many more from which a real name can easily be deduced. Keeping this list brings to mind a significant question of our priorities and ethics as a very popular website. Many of the people saying the list should be kept say it is important for administration, but I see no indication that LTA and the banned templates wouldn't be much more useful. This list seems to serve little purpose except to permanently disparage those listed and given that it's continued existence flies in the face of the concept that a ban is preventative, not punitive. This list is nearly 100% punitive from an ethical standpoint. Useful information should be migrated to LTA and this page should be deleted and salted. I see no evidence at all that this list prevents banned users from continuing their abuse, and in fact it may have the exact opposite effect in many cases. Kindzmarauli (talk) 14:58, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We must be kind and responsible in our treatment of other contributors. In general, long-term bans are unnecessary, and virtually no one ought to be banned for a decade or more. We shouldn't be treating people this way, and a page like this is just scribbling graffiti onto tombstones. Let's show some decency. Everyking (talk) 01:04, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I really can't accept that. There are large numbers of users whose behavior makes it unmistakably clear that they need to be banned forever. There would have to be a better rationale for getting rid of the page than the alleged undesirability of long-term bans. ImprovingWiki (talk) 03:25, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I did: "We must be kind and responsible in our treatment of other contributors. ... We shouldn't be treating people this way, and a page like this is just scribbling graffiti onto tombstones." In other words, it's mean. Everyking (talk) 00:27, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So the argument now is that being "mean" to people who, for excellent reasons, have been banned from editing Wikipedia is worse than the meanness involved in deleting a page that a large number of legitimate users have made clear that they find a useful resource? I don't see that as being even slightly reasonable. ImprovingWiki (talk) 01:05, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It actually is very reasonable, because this page isn't a useful resource for anybody and it perpetuates a vicious culture of exclusion, division and demonization. A great many banned users were banned for very poor reasons under very questionable circumstances, and it's about time we confront that reality instead of continuing on this self-destructive path of slurring our own contributors for years and years. Everyking (talk) 02:19, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, you are placing the interests of banned users above the interests of other Wikipedia users, those who have not been banned and actually have a right to edit. ImprovingWiki (talk) 06:31, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I do not see how we will know which user is banned if we do not have a page for this. Ban is not block so unless we have some other way to know what is the status of some editors I am in favour or keeping this list. Discussion on long-term bans is no the subject of this Mfd. Here we discuss the existence of the page based on the current status/consensus. Also the discussion on whether is list is up-to-date should be done on the page's talk page and not here. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:42, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, fortunately, there is Category:Banned Wikipedia users, and individual templates which can be placed on the user page, linking to the ban discussion, so we do have another way to know these users' statuses without this list, which, in any case, has no guarantee of accuracy, and contains commentary on these users added by anyone at all. If the category is not up to date, well, neither is the list. The category does not contain the problematic "mini-essays", so is a better option to update and maintain, and maintaining a separate list is superfluous, and bound to be inaccurate, quite apart from the other issues discussed here. Begoontalk11:25, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, frankly, yes, perish the thought. The commentary is unnecessary, and often inappropriate, as explained in the nomination. Most commenters seem to agree with that, even those who favour keeping the list. Begoontalk11:42, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Essential site maintenance tool. It is fine to make this invisible to Google search, but the list needs to exist and be visible to WP volunteers. Carrite (talk) 13:44, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Protonk: "As for the usefulness of the page, is this a resource which is regularly referred to by admins and editors to keep tabs on banned users?" As a reasonably busy admin for around 4 years, often tied up with complex SPI and tracking other trolls, serial vandals, and spammers, my answer to that is 'No'. Over the years I have added three or four names to the list but quite honestly while doing so, I couldn't think of a reason why I was doing it apart from following what I assumed was supposed to be done. Don't get me wrong - I have zero sympathy for anyone who ends up on that list, but where it's best not to feed the trolls, I see no reason either why we should feed a lust for bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:00, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I find it to be extremely strange that there would be any support for deleting a page that non-banned users say they find useful on the grounds that banned users might be upset by its existence. How can anyone reasonably say that the page is not useful when people have said clearly that they find it useful? ImprovingWiki (talk) 01:08, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Loathsome archaic public shaming vehicle. And the support arguments are meritless. (Like, "If they didn't want to be on that list, then they shouldn't have done what they did to get banned." [Yes mommy. I donahwanna do tha' again, 'cuzin you spanked me. Funny!]) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:07, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Banned users cannot be discerned from blocked users on the list you provided. That's for all blocked users. This list is only for banned users. Doctalk13:47, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A list of banned users is the easiest way to determine a ban status, really. There's no good reason to make it more difficult for people to "determine" ban status. Doctalk15:05, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That cat is populated by a bunch of IPs, duplicates (like Editor X and Editor X's talk page), templates... as well as actually banned users. How is that mess preferable to the current list? It's sloppier from what I see. Doctalk03:26, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep I have found this useful in the past to identify various species of quacking. However, the page should be reviewed to eliminate negative weasel-words (useful expamples provided by nom), and made as NPOV as possible. 78.26(spin me / revolutions) 16:32, 19 September 2014 (UTC) I'm re-thinking this. Not yet ready to change to delete, but I'm no longer sure the benefits outweigh the damage. 78.26(spin me / revolutions)18:05, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have used this page sometimes when looking at AN or ANI threads that report on sockpuppets of banned users. Keeping a record of why they were banned, and the discussion that led to the ban, is useful when investigating those cases so that modus operandi and tell-tale signs of a reincarnation can be recognized. Also when reviewing unban requests it is necessary to keep a record of the reason for the ban in the first place so that we can consider whether, and if so how, such a request should be entertained. Certainly, being placed on such a list does carry a stigma, but it is one that users usually brought upon themselves through repeated egregious behavior so I feel no guilt about that. Sjakkalle(Check!)20:51, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm convinced enough that the relevant information can be pretty easily found elsewhere per WTT's arguments and the note about Category:Banned Wikipedia users. Although many editors do deal with banned editors, admins are ultimately responsible for minimizing their ability to disrupt Wikipedia, so I'm likely to defer to their opinion on this matter. It seems like the vast majority of admins in this discussion do not find the page useful for their purposes (I've only counted one admin who supported keeping this page). Contextualizing the nature of their ban is the only uniquely useful part of this page, but it seems like a colossal waste of time to police and ensure the neutrality of about 450 ban descriptions. I, JethroBTdrop me a line00:19, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'd be wasting my finger energy typing out reasons that have already been more than adequately set out above, by WTT, Black Kite, Begoon and others. I incorporate their reasons as my own. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:35, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with fire. Much as I dislike anything that smacks even a little bit of Argumentum ad Jimbonem, Worm's own arguments are highly persuasive to me. This is a name and shame list, and as Worm says, it's full of comments made at times when emotions ran high. If it's kept, it should certainly at least be cleaned up: blank any entry more than (for instance) three years old, and blank the comments, only keeping the ban dates and the links (as per alternative 2 in the talkpage discussion.) Just the facts, ma'am. But deleting is better. I'll just chime in with Worm about never having had occasion to use the page, and I've been an admin more than twice as long as his measly four years, and have dealt a bit with ban appeals and ban evasion. Bishonen | talk15:57, 20 September 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Comment: This list isn't extremely useful. Like other admins that have commented, I don't normally make use of it. That said, most of the "delete" arguments don't hold any water. The cries of "It's not fair" remind me of listening to small children, who typically use "it's not fair" as a way of protesting things that are well-balanced and proportioned. "It's not fair" is usually a shorthand for "that's not nice" or "you aren't doing it my way", neither of which have anything to do with fairness. The idea that there's something inherently wrong with tying a real person's name to a real person's actions is ludicrous: a right to privacy does not extend to a right to misbehave publicly and not have people comment on it.—Kww(talk) 18:45, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, people typically say nothing about unfairness until they themselves are treated unfairly, and then of course they aren't taken seriously. Everyking (talk) 01:32, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt. I see no meaningful purpose for this page and in fact, see it as a detriment to the project. WormTT and others delete !voters have made the argument well, so I won't repeat it all here. I recognize that I'm only an editor in good standing, so I'm sure that my !vote won't carry the same weight as some but to address some of those who want to keep the page, I'll say that space on the site isn't limitless (it costs money, some of which I contribute) and the resources here should be dedicated as much as possible towards the encyclopedic endeavor in which we're all participating. I fail to see any reasonable argument given above for keeping, and that should be the criteria. We only keep articles when there's a compelling reason to keep (e.g. notability, etc.), so why is this list not subject to the same criteria? Many of the "keep" arguments are in most cases quite non-specific ("useful" but no description of how it's useful; "there must be a record kept somewhere", but no rationale provided for actually needing to keep a record). VertiumWhen all is saidand done22:32, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The page is useful, to be specific about it, in that it provides an easily-accessible list of banned users and descriptions of their behavior. There is more information here than could be found in the long-term abuse pages, for example. I realize that many people may not like this argument, but the list serves a helpful purpose in showing what kind of place Wikipedia is. The proposal to delete it seems partly motivated by a desire to hide Wikipedia's dirty laundry and conceal problems with the site's culture. I understand the thinking behind the move, but I can't say I'm sympathetic. The greater the problems with Wikipedia's culture are, the less anyone should want to hide evidence that exposes them. ImprovingWiki (talk) 00:11, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Could you point to anyone who's motivations appear to be hiding dirty laundry? Casting aspersions does not help the debate. WormTT(talk) 10:16, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The page is useful as a list of editors that have exhausted community patience. It is helpful for reference in socking cases. It is also a cautionary page, where we see what happens when rules are broken. The argument that there are real names referenced here fails to carry weight: people have the option to use an identity that is nothing like their name, and if they do so and then commit actions that get them on the list, that is entirely their fault. I see nothing like a consensus to remove the page forming on the sixth attempt at deletion, and I suggest we close soon. Jusdafax01:04, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised by the last sentence - the previous deletion requests were not made in good faith (look at them), as I stated in my nomination statement. The keep/delete votes are not numerically not that different, and the reasons for deletion are more varied and I believe stronger than the reasons for keep. Perhaps there is not yet a consensus, but the right thing to do there is keep discussing until one is formed, not cut the discussion short. WormTT(talk) 10:16, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is also a cautionary page, where we see what happens when rules are broken. Just like ancient times then, right [from article Spartacus]?: "Six thousand survivors of the revolt captured by the legions of Crassus were crucified, lining the Appian Way from Rome to Capua." Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:45, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I never knew the list existed and most editors probably did not either. But admins can't be everywhere and editors working in areas with people just bold enough to come in an edit under their own names should be able to know their is such a list. Almost all are anonymous handles. At worst Wikipedia could make a hidden list for the aid of admins. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie)04:40, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Admins have enough power and privileges as it is. There is no reason why the dirt on banned users (and if we are going to be honest, we do need to admit that that is what the list is all about) should be for admin eyes only. Let everyone see the nastiness that has developed on Wikipedia over the years. ImprovingWiki (talk) 05:00, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A tough one......I have looked at it occasionally. Part of me is reluctant to get rid of anything that might hamper tracking of long term users yet I am sympathetic to people who see it as a 'wall of shame'. One way might be that it lives in deleted-space yet is regularly updated (?) - that way any admin can see it if needed and share with folks sockhunting etc. Otherwise I possibly err (just) on the side of keeping but would understand and not oppose a deletion. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 06:33, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If it were made "admin read only", like Special:UnwatchedPages, it wouldn't be such a big deal. It's the "all or nothing, delete" that poses a problem,forcing me to say keep. I feel that we jumped from the talk page to MFD way too quick, before other ideas could be explored. Dennis12:47, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And yet again highlights the stupidity of the dichotomous "X for deletion" rather than "X for discussion" (which includes other options) but hey...another time. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 13:12, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do like the idea of it being deleted and updated regularly, but is it practical? Similar options would be an admin only namespace or an admin wiki, but the potential for abuse there is monumental. WormTT(talk) 10:16, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - As per my rationale before on the talk page. This page is nothing but a pillory with which we hang the long-banned accounts of our "wiki-enemies" to jeer and catcall at. What use is gained by this page? Every time I go to some banned user's page, I don't need to look here to see that he's banned! I don't know of any other group, organization, or website that publicly shames its banned users and lists them all by (account) name. Yes, some people do link their real names to their accounts—there's no need to try to hurt them off-wiki. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:59, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a necessary tool to help users distinguish from a user engaged in a content dispute and a sock of a banned editor. Additionally, several of these users have been active for years, and both rank-and-file users and administrators need to know who should be blocked/reverted on sight. HangingCurveSwing for the fence18:44, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful keep. I don't think Wikipedia should have any users who are banned for 10 years - we should have sanctions end much sooner than that automatically. I also don't think this is that great a resource; I have no idea how complete it is and it isn't set up to be easy to extract trends from. But the bottom line is that some editors chose to record this information for whatever reason, put some time into it, it concerns Wikipedia operations and admins should randomly rush in and make it unreadable by them (unless they happen to be admins) as a community gesture. We don't need gestures; we need a genuinely more forgiving culture. Wnt (talk) 19:28, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tricky, isn't it? Wnt appears to be saying that the list is no good really, and unreliable, hard to use, badly maintained, but that because this Mfd can't fix the unforgiving nature of our culture in one fell swoop, we should keep the list, because deleting it would only be a "gesture". I think that's it, but like you, I'm confused. Maybe he thinks deleting the list would be used as an "excuse" not to make the real changes he thinks are needed, rather than a step in the right direction? Perhaps he'll explain. Begoontalk19:59, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying that just because I don't see much use in the collaborative effort these editors have made does not mean it should be deleted. We shouldn't have a system where your comments get deleted unless a majority of people decide they like and appreciate what you had to say. Wnt (talk) 20:33, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. It doesn't really address the "just a gesture" bit, but that's not so important, I guess. We delete contributions, revise contributions, repurpose, move, revise and delete articles and pages according to consensus all the time. That's how this place works. It happens to my contributions, and yours, every day. It's a pillar, or something, I think... Begoontalk20:40, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm OK with revising, repurposing, moving, and deleting (in the sense of normal editing out) the contributions. It's the part where you mark the history versions inaccessible to everyone but the exalted Admins, who may well continue to make decisions based on the data in the file but keep it out of sight of the peons who worked on it, that I have a problem with. I am suspicious that the motive for hiding this file has nothing at all to do with protecting the dignity of the editors (which no one ever cared about before) but that some people were embarrassed that it was brought up that Wikipedia has all these people going on ten years banned. It's the admins who want to be protected from embarrassment, that they preside over such a vindictive and unforgiving system. Wnt (talk) 18:43, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm willing to be convinced that this has some essential use that is not fulfilled by the block log, but until then I think the potential damage outweighs the list's usefulness. Gamaliel (talk) 14:31, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I see nothing wrong with having a central location in which people can see who is banned. It should be hidden from the search engines and any "opinionated" material should be deleted; but if a person has been socking after being banned, that should be left in. Neutron (talk) 21:17, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not an appropriate page for an encyclopedia, possible BLP minefiled, not the kind of page that helps the project, as if to say to new volunteers "behave or this is whare you will end up." ♫ SqueakBoxtalkcontribs04:19, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but refactor. This only needs to be a simple table, much like the "Banned by Jimbo Wales" section. Certainly can be tagged for noindex; suggest additionally splitting people over 5 years to a collapsed table. — xaosfluxTalk03:29, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the Arbcom list. The delete proposal essentially makes it harder to have information on community actions but obscuring community actions is not a good idea for a number of reasons including individual and group accountability, improvement of process, understanding wikipedia, etc. If we make the community list a subsection of the arbcom page, then arbcom clerks can curate it, which should eliminate abusive posts. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:30, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It states that it is an "incomplete list", and gives no criteria for inclusion or exclusion. As such it is worse than useless. The list should be complete, and constantly updated, or should not exist at all: Noyster (talk), 11:45, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Every article, list, category etc. in the project is incomplete. In this case, criteria for inclusion appears to be "is a banned account". benmoore14:01, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is implicitly violative of WP:BLP for any person whose real name might be educed, as implying that they have committed wrongful acts. As such, it might "cause harm". This noted: it is reasonable for ArbCom to maintain such a list in its own space as long as it is not viewable by others. Note this is specifically a policy-based !vote, and the opinions of others that we should keep a "wall of shame" is contrary to Wikipedia fundamental policy. While it might help ArbCom, it is of no value to others as far as I can tell, thus must be deleted. Collect (talk) 13:40, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No. If anything, it would be the ban ( or the underlying conduct) that "might cause harm" (and that is a discretionary standard, by the by) -- listing cannot therefore cause substantive harm. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:55, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:BLPTALK, "Although this policy applies to posts about Wikipedians in project space, some leeway is permitted to allow the handling of administrative issues by the community". I think listing banned users falls under the handling of administrative issues by the community. Ken Arromdee (talk) 19:43, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And I submit that having it under ArbCom fully satisfies such needs. And we do keep the records - the issue here is the list itself. Any "administrative needs" can surely be as easily met by using the direct records currently kept instead of this secondary list. Do you feel that it is necessary to be a public file? Collect (talk) 22:03, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and manage: I can see how this would be useful (i.e. for sock-hunting admins), but after X amount of time, the name should be removed. After a while, most vandals aren't really worried about continuing to make socks and continue vandalizing, so, say, 2 years later, they can be cleared off the list. Definitely prevent search engine indexing, per the below-mentioned discussion on Jimbo's page. Supernerd11Firemind ^_^ Pokedex16:32, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a good point, and further we should view this deletion debate in the light of policies, not just "like it" or "don't like it". For article space (and some project space criteria) we make good use of policy; criteria include would it have to be fundamentally re-written and is it intended solely to disparage or harass. What a great many people are saying here, even those who prefer deletion, is that in fact there are many things wrong with the current content of the list (the summaries of behaviour written in haste by biased parties, amongst other aspects), which is true, but there has been no convincing argument that these problems cannot be fixed by editing and improving the page. Thus deletion is not warranted. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:08, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with this argument is that nobody is going to manage the page and there's no way it's ever going to be anything but a coatrack for people to publicly humiliate enemies of the state indefinitely. I have yet to see a "keep" argument that explains why the ban category and LTA are insufficient and why we need a third page that won't be maintained by anyone except those with axes to grind or by socks of trolls who want attention. The Master---)Vote Saxon(---01:19, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a bot? I wouldn't think it'd be too hard to have a bot scan the dates of addition/modification, and remove them after X amount of time. I don't know a whole lot about the background vandal-fighting (i.e. checkusers), but I'd think that having a list page like this would make things easier to cross-check. Supernerd11Firemind ^_^ Pokedex16:19, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it is the only record of the banning of an IP-hopping editor who intentionally harassed me. Not all users listed on it are editors with user names. Those with user names are not allowed back. Their user names in general do not identify individuals, only accounts. There is a defined process for banned users to return, and they remain banned until they follow that process. This is an important informational page recording the most egregious violations of policy and should be kept. Without it, we have nothing to reference in identifying long-standing vandals who use sock puppets to repeatedly return. Yworo (talk) 06:46, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redundant to Category:Banned Wikipedia users which is updated precisely when a new user is banned. Furthermore, any confirmed & blocked sockpuppets generally link back to whichever account they are suspected to be controlled by, creating an intricate and complex web of blocked/banned users that does the same job as this list (albeit way more effectively). LazyBastardGuy17:17, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or at least strip down to a list of names and links. (In the latter case, we should always allow WP:RTV for any banned user with a username that contains or may reveal personal information, without exception.) A lot of the "keep" !voters are questioning why we are putting the interests of banned users above the interests of other users. I say that this is a perfectly reasonable thing to do, if the harm to banned users far exceeds the benefit to users of the list. Let's say that there are 500 banned users and 500 people who regularly use the list when dealing with banned users (which is probably an overestimate). Further, let's assume that the interests of a banned user are only worth 1/10 of that of a normal user, so the number of banned users is equivalent to 50 normal users. If they receive -100 harm from the list (e.g. their name showing up on search engines, curious people stumbling upon a list and seeing something they did ten years ago, etc.), and those normal users receive +5 benefit from fighting abuse, then there is 50 * -100 = -5000 total damage and 500 * +5 = +2500 total benefit, which is a net negative. Obviously this is not an exact science, but I'm just giving a plausible explanation for why we might care more about the interests of banned users than others. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 16:57, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I can certainly understand where the deletion supporters are coming from, but I feel that the page has some reference value. However, I am strongly against using the page as a "wall of shame". I'd advocate de-indexing the page from Google and deleting excess commentary. --Writing Enthusiast☎01:51, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Who would decide what constitutes "excess commentary"? It seems to me that most of the information on the page has very good reasons for being there. Wouldn't what you are recommending undermine the purpose of having the page? ImprovingWiki (talk) 07:01, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
By "removing excess commentary", I'm saying that we should turn the list into just a plain list and not a place where people can place biased, negative content about the banned users. If people wish to know more about the ban, they can read the archived ban discussion. --Writing Enthusiast☎19:58, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't recall ever using this page in my 7+ years of being an administrator. I don't see the need to keep a Hall of Shame/"Hall of Fame for the Damned" for editors who have been banned...many of whom were banned before I even created an account. While nearly all of the editors listed on the page probably deserved their bans, I don't see any need to shame and insult them. They're blocked and long-gone. If this page is kept, at the very least, the descriptions should be cut down to when the users were banned and the only other information should be a link to their ban discussion; remove all the insults. Acalamari19:52, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An authoritative list of currently active bans is useful, since it saves having to dig through old archives to find the details of one. Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:40, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep , and keep indexed. For openness of the process, historical purposes, administrative purposes. One of Wikipedia foundational principles should be the openness not only of the result (the encyclopedia under a libre license) but also of the process. That is why we have page histories, archives etc. Bans are one of the processes that happen on WP, and they ought to be documented in the open as well, for the same reason. We do not want to do things behind a curtain, nor to give the impression we have anything to hide. There is also an intrinsic historical value in such a list: after all, this is one of the most important websites on the internet, and as such it is of academic and historical value to know who, how many and why have been banned. It is also obvious that such a list helps administrative work and know-how.--cyclopiaspeak!17:21, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I just now saw the same IP making multiple comments on this MfD using broken English and multiple particular key phrases like "dirty lies" and "bullies", and I therefore visited Wikipedia:List of banned users to remind myself whether User:Mbz1 was banned or merely indefinitely blocked (and why), before removing a comment that had not been replied to per WP:BAN. That's just in the last few minutes, and I imagine some active administrators may have reason to use it more often than I do (for example if they often deal with sockpuppets of returning banned users). --Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:25, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I find it difficult to believe that you have the ability to identify a user by key phrases but not recall if they are banned or blocked. WormTT(talk) 07:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think we've just had a good faith demonstration that the list is useful. Indeed, if some editors say they find it useful, why would anyone reasonably question that? ImprovingWiki (talk) 08:24, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an unreasonable question to ask how it's useful. "I find it useful" is helpful as "I like it", again, not a valid argument in deletion discussions. If the answer to how it's useful is "so that I can do X, Y or Z", that's fine. If the answer is "so that we can keep a record", I'd argue that it's not. WormTT(talk) 13:49, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If someone wants to confirm whether or not an editor is banned and not just blocked why can't they just visit the userpage? If this editor is considered a long-term abuser, why can't they be added to LTA? If an IP is posting abusive comments at the noticeboards or elsewhere about "dirty lies" or "bullies", it seems RBI would be used in most cases, whether or not the IP could be tied to someone who was previously banned. Kindzmarauli (talk) 15:09, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I find it difficult to believe that someone could fail to understand the distinction between grammatical blunders so hideous and trolling memes so obvious that they give the editor away every time, and the exact status at a particular point in time of a particular de facto banned editor (i.e. may only be indef blocked but not banned). Especially so when several of them hang out together off-wiki, plan and discuss their on-wiki antics including unblock and unban requests with varying degrees of sincerity, their real life meetings with various arbitrators in order to advance these various agendas, and so on. Two of these even got mixed up themselves recently as to which they were talking about (one of them was banned and one only indef blocked), so it's easier than you think. Wikipedia chooses to maintain the tripartate distinction of banned, de facto banned, and indef blocked; don't be too surprised if some people need an aide-mémoire. I need an aide-mémoire more than others, as tone and intent are clearer to me than technical distinctions; just remember I'm the person who mixed up Julian Assange and Chelsea Manning when attempting to warn someone about an arbitration remedy that applied to one but not to the other. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:01, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As for Kindzmarauli's comment, this is a major flaw with some of the Delete arguments here. If the reason for deleting the article is that the parts of it worth keeping can just be moved to WP:LTA, then you are arguing for a Merge result, not a deletion. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:01, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I keep seeing others trying to discredit deletion rationales by claiming it's really a merge vote. I guess that's the latest way to wikilawyer down your opposition. It's nonsense, please stop it. The Master---)Vote Saxon(---01:13, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've used it when I clerked at SPI more than a couple times (research), and twice to verify that someone was actually banned after someone put a "banned" banner on their page. In both cases, they weren't banned, the editor just took it upon themselves to plaster the badge of shame on their page because they felt like they were de facto banned. So yes, it prevented badges of shame from being put on blocked user's pages. Dennis13:44, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You can't prove a negative with that list, although the list is pretty complete over the last few years. You can also use the list to research who was banned in a particular time period, which can be useful for reasons that would take more space to explain than is necessary or reasonable here. Granted, these aren't daily uses and not something every editor would do, but still useful. I don't think it is necessary to prove the page is the most useful page we have, just reasonably useful. Dennis18:12, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't think "reasonably useful" is enough of a bar: I think one should make a case that such a list is "worth it"; that is, whether such a list is useful enough to outweigh its downsides. (I know that there are many among us who don't think that the feelings of those we've chosen to exclude from Wikipedia are worthy of consideration; I am not one of them.) The list is pretty complete, yeah, but it's not actually any more authoritative than ban notices on one's userpage--it's just as easy to put a false entry/delete a true entry from the list as it is to do the same to a userpage, so to be honest, I'm not sure it really provides any particular value there that can't be found anywhere else. I'll concede your point that the list could be useful for research, but then the question becomes: how much benefit do we get from such research? Is it worth it? It seems to me that it is not, though as always, others can and will disagree. Writ Keeper⚇♔19:53, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is a slippery slope. "Worth it" is in the eye of the beholder, thus entirely subjective, and if used, would be hung over dozens of pages here, including many useful and/or humor pages. You would be creating a new standard that has never been used at MFD before, something I think would be a grave error and doesn't have a basis in policy. No one is forced to edit here, no one is forced to conduct themselves in a manner that eventually leads to a ban. I disagree with a number of those bans as being too premature, but there are no saints in that list, and at the end of the day, the list represents consensus. By virtue of accepting the extra bits, you and I have pledged to respect consensus, even if we disagree with it. We shouldn't grave dance about it, but it is entirely reasonable to have a central page that both lists banned persons and substantiates that status via a diff. Everything else should go away, which I've already stated in multiple places. Dennis20:21, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The slope ain't that slippery. Of course it's subjective, but that doesn't mean that we can't come to a consensus about it. (As an aside, how is the conclusion that something is "entirely reasonable" not subjective?) If a sizable group of editors comes to a consensus that a page is not worth it during an MfD, why shouldn't we delete a page? If a consensus forms that a particular humor page/useful page isn't humorous/useful enough to outweigh any downsides it has, why shouldn't we delete it? Let's not get lost down the "not-policy" rabbit hole; as you said, we pledged to respect consensus (we respect policy because it's a reflection of that consensus, not just because it's there); if a consensus forms that a page is a net negative to Wikipedia, why would we not implement that consensus and delete the page? I mean, this isn't article space, where the mere existence of an article is reason enough to outweigh many ills; this is MfD, where, at the end of the day, no pages are needed for an encyclopedia to be a thing. And I know you don't really mean it to be disingenuous, but saying No one is forced to edit here, no one is forced to conduct themselves in a manner that eventually leads to a ban is disingenuous, nonetheless; that implies that all bans are deserved and that bans are never placed in error. I'm not willing to assert that; are you? Writ Keeper⚇♔20:36, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Saying we need nothing but article pages is hyperbole, so I don't see the point. Same for implying I'm saying something that I'm not. I've been clear in my position, I don't need yet one more person putting (misleading) words in my mouth. Anyway, this isn't a hill I would choose to die on (nor would I suggest anyone else). I've stated my perspective and out of respect for Worm, provided additional information to add some clarity, something I now regret and it is turning into badgering. I'm really not up for a debate or a discussion where we just talk past each other. Dennis00:21, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My vote to Keep the page was not an endorsement that we have to keep it in its current form. Summaries could be revised, even removed, real names could be concealed on request, even the whole thing could be drastically stripped down to a simple table of statistics and links. But these things don't imply that outright deletion is required. The primary data is not, should not be removed, because the archives of AN/ANI should remain available for all editors to peruse. So there is no potential merit in removing access of ordinary editors to the history of this page, which is all that deletion actually means - even if you think that's merit. Wnt (talk) 23:58, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You and I are probably of a like mind on this. I do want to see the opinions and prose removed, but want it visible to all with just name and link. Making it invisible except to admin isn't my first choice, it is just better than deleting it. I'm not a fan of making pages visible only to admin, except the rare page like Special:UnwatchedPages due to the potential abuse of making it public. I don't see that high of a potential for abuse for the banned page under the situation you have outlined, ie: removing real names by request and the like. It isn't about spite, just usability. Dennis15:31, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Dennis Brown: (NOTE: Never mind -- I just realized you are an admin, so I just misunderstood what you said) Either you're confused or I'm confused, because I was pretty certain that deletion IS making something visible only to admins. When something is completely struck from the database (or at least, that's what they say... I wouldn't bet on it if court asked for the data) and made inaccessible to all, that's WP:Oversight. I think some editors have this notion that deleting material somehow "makes room on the disk", but that's not the case. Wnt (talk) 20:40, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I don't think OSing blanks it from the database either, so no option makes a difference, space wise. My saying we agree was on the point that it needs keeping but stripping down to basics and manage it better, we do agree on that. And there is a way to make an active page viewable by admin only (the special:unwatched pages is the example I gave), which is just like a regular, editable page. You just can't view/edit/etc it without the admin bit. That is very different than reading a deleted page, which can't be updated or changed without recreating the page. A "special" page could be maintained and updated on a regular basis, non-admin just couldn't see it. Not my first choice, but better than outright deletion. Dennis20:53, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'm not sure that's possible without developer intervention. I think UnwatchedPages is a thing unto itself; it's not a result of some different and generic level of protection or something, but a specific right called "unwatchedpages". Moreover, since it is in fact a special page, it can't be edited, which is true of any page in the Special: "namespace; they're not real pages. I don't think there's a way to extend something like that to an editable page without dev intervention. Writ Keeper⚇♔21:04, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My, Wikipedia does love hierarchy nowadays. Oversighters to delete stuff from admins, superprotectors to protect stuff from admins, and still, there must be somebody higher than them! Because if someone actually does find material that is genuinely illegal to post, something like excerpts from Phillip Greaves' book, then they must have to have some way to remove it so oversighters can't see it either, only (I assume) the police... Wnt (talk) 21:33, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Special:Unwatchedpages is useless anyway; it is limited to 5000 articles in alphabetical order, by which time we haven't even got to "A" - the 5000th is something like "2010 Andorran Netball Championships (round of 16) or something equally pointless. Black Kite (talk)22:17, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am a bit mixed when it comes to the fate of this page. It seems evident that this page is used by at least some users... some of the time. The only other comment that I can *sort of* agree on is We could just have the name, and a link to the discussion that authorized the ban. There really is no reason for more. The list is a shame list, but a necessary evil for the purpose of administration, and otherwise, there will be confusion when someone reverts someone for being "a banned sock" and there is no way to substantiate or disprove it. Dennis 13:38, 14 September 2014 (UTC). I guess, if this list is necessary in order to maintain the system of banning users, then we have to keep it, but it just doesn't stop the fact that this is either a Hall of Shame, or food for the trolls, who find it nothing more honorable to have their name on the Hall of Fame. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 23:12, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, during the 13 months (April 2013 to May 2014) that my moniker was included on this list, I didn't feel any humiliation. Nobody was to blame, but me, for my then situation & so I had no problem being listed. GoodDay (talk) 12:31, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We must think of it as a way to keep track is not a must, since as other posters here have pointed out, there are alternative ways to "keep track". We must think of it [...] not as a wall of shame. Who is being referred to by word "We"? (We editors? Well that's just great. Because the entire English-speaking world has access to the page, not only editors.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:45, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(res to WTT's question) Yes, I've used the list. I asked an administrator to remove my moniker, after my site-ban was lifted. During the time my moniker was there, it helped me reform my behaviour. as it was an in my face reminder of my banned status. Just like the huge templates that were on my Userpage & User talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 22:42, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response GoodDay, it's good to have your perspective. You say that it helped in the same way as the huge templates on your Userpage and talk page. So why would the Userpage and talk page huge templates not be enough? WormTT(talk) 11:10, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing myself listed on the wall of shame, motivated me to reform my behaviour, proove doubters wrong & get my name removed. Being shamed into reforming, isn't a bad thing. GoodDay (talk) 18:55, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think most people are shamed by it; I think it generally just makes people more angry and bitter and alienated, which does us no good at all. Everyking (talk) 02:19, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. If anything this list incites people to continue being disruptive who would otherwise just move on to another site and forget about Wikipedia. And for the kind of folks who get off on building up their sock logs to show of for their friends it's like a badge of honor. The list does far more harm than it does good. Kindzmarauli (talk) 15:56, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I vote that we keep the page, no harm in it, a user who was banned obviously did something to deserve it, and they have to own up to their actions, and be reminded that they're listed on the page because of their own fault. 173.58.251.107 (talk) 02:35, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Has uses, has problems. Is clearly useful for recent bans. It harmful to record in a public place negative information with no ongoing value. Recommend archiving, or blanking, the old stuff so as to hide, or have the arbs or checkusers take ownership and move it out of view. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Everything has it's good and bad points, this page is no different. We could put a show/hide tab with the page like how it is for Jimbo's bans, that way it's not a "wall of shame", since the names are now hidden until accessed. 173.58.251.107 (talk) 02:46, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For a real-world analogy, one of the pubs in our village has a list of barred customers on the wall. It's completely pointless. Why? Well, if the staff don't actually recognise the person, they're hardly going to ask everyone their name before they serve them. Not only that, but many of the people have moved away years ago and at least one of them is dead. Black Kite (talk)19:27, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hold on a second, you're saying that a person listed in the list is dead, and wikipedians are still looking for his socks? It is worse than I thought it was, but, Black Kite, if you're know the person is dead, why don't you remove his name from the shameful list? Why not to let at least his soul to rest in peace? 119.4.40.105 (talk) 20:39, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly support deleting this, per the founder. The last thing we need is a "Wall of Shame" where the people listed become targets of editors they've dealt with. I also believe that bans -- by default -- should last one year (based on the term the Arbcom gives when they bans users). Far too many times I've seen disruption as a result of a suspicion. It only provokes more sockpuppetry and more disruption. The vicious cycle has to stop. RWCasinoKid (talk) 00:40, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The existence of the list does not "provoke more sockpuppetry." Nonsense. Do you have some examples of this? People that wind up on the list tend to sock regardless of whether there's a list or not. It would be the very first time the list were removed here. Will socking actually stop (or diminish in any way) because of its removal? Doctalk00:45, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The rationale to delete the list could be extended to the WP:LTA list, could it not? Some would say merge this list into that rather than delete it. But isn't that list just a "Wall Of Shame" too? Maybe we should have no record whatsoever of people that abuse this site. Then we can't track them at all. Doctalk01:00, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think removing the list will stop the socking, but I'm sure that agreeing a default limit on how long someone should be banned by deault is sometime that should be discussed. If they know how long they are to stay off, then it's less likely they'll try to come back sooner and at a lot of trouble could be avoided to begin with. RWCasinoKid (talk) 01:03, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why doesn't someone make some sort of progress (at least in the spirit of "achieving consensus") by being bold and doing the "NOINDEX" thing? Why does it have to be so black and white? Keep or Delete? "Wall Of Shame" vs. "No Record At All". Even the staunchest "Keep" would be hard-pressed to fight the no-index thing. Doctalk07:07, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. Could any of the opposes clarify for me how the LTA list is any different and/or preferable to this list? Or is that list next on the chopping block, because it's similarly... "mean-spirited", maybe? "I just don't like it." I'm all for us holding hands and singing Kumbaya at the tops of our lungs in hopes that the "baddies" will get the hint. Sadly, this list really does not encourage any editor on it to continue their bad behaviors. And it causes no actual harm at all. Doctalk01:35, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If by "oppose" you mean "delete", I will be happy to try to answer your question. The LTA list is better curated, for one thing. Look at the the list's history and you will see stale entries being removed from time to time. On the contrary, people remain on the List of Banned Users years, and in at least one case, a decade, after they have moved on from Wikipedia. What possible benefit is it to anyone to perpetually "memorialize" someone getting kicked off a website in 2003 or 2004? You bring up a good point, though, about the LTA list: we should examine it as well. No one's really objecting to tracking (via LTA pages or another method) people who are actively attempting to damage the site, but there's no reason, for example, to continue to list people after they have died. They are presumably not abusing the site from the afterlife. 28bytes (talk) 02:13, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As 28bytes points out, LTA is better curated taking into account when an individual gives up and that's definitely a big difference, but the entire outlook of the LTA list is different. It also focuses on the behaviour of the abusive editors, allowing identification of new editors by the behaviour, each individual on the LTA list has been abusive enough to have a detailed sub-page, with a variety of links. The page carries the following warning Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Header. LTA is a completely different beast to this list, it's useful, current and allows the individual a way out (ie stop abusing). They are not the same. WormTT(talk) 08:16, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Who is deceased on the list of banned users? Better yet: how is decease even determined for a banned user? "Well-wishers" in good standing will duly notify the community when a banned user dies, and we take that at face value? Mind you, the "deceased" thing from above was concerning a RL situation/list that is unrelated to this. Doctalk02:33, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Check my recent contributions. If it's not clear which user I'm talking about, or why I don't doubt that they've died, we can discuss it further on my talk page. 28bytes (talk) 02:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
