List of banned users: proposal

[Captain Occam]

Is there any serious interest in creating a list of all former admins who were banned, desysopped or resigned "under a cloud"? Creating this would probably take a lot of work, so it would have to involve some dedication from a person who has access to the relevant data (which I don't have).

[thekohser]

Is there any serious interest in creating a list of all former admins who were banned, desysopped or resigned "under a cloud"? Creating this would probably take a lot of work, so it would have to involve some dedication from a person who has access to the relevant data (which I don't have).

I would be interested in such a list, but not in working to make it happen. Why not crowdsource it to Wikipedia itself, in a Wikipedia: page space?

[Captain Occam]

I would be interested in such a list, but not in working to make it happen. Why not crowdsource it to Wikipedia itself, in a Wikipedia: page space?

As was mentioned here, a page like this at Wikipedia used to exist. But it was redesigned in March 2013, making the embarrassing details more difficult to find.

If Wikipediocracy were to create its own version of this page, most of the information could come from the old version of the Wikipedia page. The two things we'd need to collect are information about admins who have resigned after the list was redesigned, and information about admins who resigned for reasons that weren't made public. (Shell Kinney is the only example of that I'm aware of, but I'm sure others exist.)

[Kelly Martin]

I don't see this as particularly useful. The vast majority of such cases are inside baseball and cataloging every instance of an admin who resigned under "less than favorable" circumstances will do more to defame the people in question than it will to further informed Wikipedia criticism, especially in those cases where the administrator used their real name or a name readily connected to their real name.

Please keep in mind that Wikipedia's "disciplinary" system is grotesquely and manifestly unfair and is perfectly willing to besmirch the reputation of its editors when doing so furthers some other interest that Wikipedia's community holds more dear. To repeat its condemnations in a catalog of all those tainted by it amounts to amplifying their libels. I don't think that's the business Wikipediocracy wants to be in. A reasoned criticism of Wikipedia's disciplinary system is not served by a noncritical list of every admin ever stained by Wikipedia's tarbrush.

[Midsize Jake]

Is there any serious interest in creating a list of all former admins who were banned, desysopped or resigned "under a cloud"? Creating this would probably take a lot of work, so it would have to involve some dedication from a person who has access to the relevant data (which I don't have).

I'd have to agree with Ms. Martin. As Mr. Kohs has demonstrated on more than one occasion, it's often useful to go back to various pages where people voted to take abusive actions and ask "where are they now?" only to find that many of them have disappeared, or been desysopped and/or banned outright themselves. But not all of those people in any given case are going to be admins, and access-wise it's not so difficult to do that kind of research. So I'd say we have little need or practical justification for a handy-dandy reference list of that nature - especially now that WP is (at least for the time being) making an effort to stop at least one ongoing defamation of those who have run afoul of them.

[Konveyor Belt]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Long-term abuse (2nd nomination) (T-H-L)

Some guy that voted keep on the Banned users mfd nominates LTA to make a point. Asshole.

[Peter Damian]

I'm sure some of the explanations are tendentious or downright false, but anyone seriously studying this or that can figure out what really happened. But "vanishing" the traces is only a cover-up mechanism.

tim

By the same logic, you would have voted to keep the original 'scarlet letter' device on exactly the same grounds? If it's a useful historical record for you, then by all means save if privately for posterity. Why support something that is libellous and vicious just because it is 'historically interesting'?

But it was a good result, despite Tim's vote for support.

[Vigilant]

Is there any serious interest in creating a list of all former admins who were banned, desysopped or resigned "under a cloud"? Creating this would probably take a lot of work, so it would have to involve some dedication from a person who has access to the relevant data (which I don't have).

I'd have to agree with Ms. Martin. As Mr. Kohs has demonstrated on more than one occasion, it's often useful to go back to various pages where people voted to take abusive actions and ask "where are they now?" only to find that many of them have disappeared, or been desysopped and/or banned outright themselves. But not all of those people in any given case are going to be admins, and access-wise it's not so difficult to do that kind of research. So I'd say we have little need or practical justification for a handy-dandy reference list of that nature - especially now that WP is (at least for the time being) making an effort to stop at least one ongoing defamation of those who have run afoul of them.

I agree.
Power players, admins or no, are the ones most likely to be banned, exposed as socks, found to be frauds, found to be contacting other people's employers...

Look back at my talk page and try to find someone there on either side who didn't end up a lost wikitoy.

[Jim]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Long-term abuse (2nd nomination) (T-H-L)

Some guy that voted keep on the Banned users mfd nominates LTA to make a point. Asshole.

Well, he was just very upset he didn't get his way, I think, after making many, many comments in the AFD arguing to keep. Let's face it, wikipedia wouldn't be wikipedia if you couldn't use all the self-contradictory "rules" to be WP:POINTY when your argument "loses". Here:

Wikipedia talk:Banning policy

Time To Get Censoring
The language of the policy needs to be altered ASAP to avoid further confusion.There now can be no mention of the list of banned users, since it has been deleted after a decidedly inconclusive deletion discussion. I hope there will be a Deletion Review, because: "In deletion discussions, no consensus normally results in the article, page, image, or other content being kept." That should be changed as well, as it is simply not the way it's done around here. Doc talk 23:24, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
All such material that is still required will be moved to WP:LTA, as indicated in the deletion discussion close. Please go ahead and update the documentation. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:29, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
I see no mention of LTA in the discussion close at all. Am I missing it? I see the opinion of one admin, as if we needed the wisdom of a Solomon to decide. (Emphasis mine) "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"." Absurd. Doc talk 23:48, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
I also will not update the documentation here. What I'd really like to add, but cannot, at WP:NOCONSENSUS is the following: "In deletion discussions, no consensus normally results in the article, page, image, or other content being kept. In abnormal or politically-charged deletion discussions, individual closing admins are permitted to interpret their own consensus for the greater protection and good of the project." Can an admin add that for me? Doc talk 00:08, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
I think an admin needs to call a WHAAAMBULANCE for you, tbh. AfDs are not votes, the strength of the arguments are weighed. If many of the "keep" weigh-ins were weak, than that final tally is more one-sided than a numeral 35-33 would suggest. WP:DRV, at your leisure. Tarc (talk) 00:38, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Heh? Piss off with your "whambulance". Way to be a dick. How about you clarify the LTA thing, smartass? Doc talk 00:51, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
In the midst of all this passive-aggressive whinging, there is one good point: the link to the deleted page needs to be removed from this policy. Reyk YO! 00:58, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Ugh. You wanna see "active" aggressive? Doc talk 01:12, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
You seem to be taking the deletion of this page very personally. There are more productive things you could be doing if you feel so strongly about it like going to DRV, instead of complaining and shouting. Reyk YO! 01:21, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip. Doc talk 01:25, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Updated links
Per the recent deletion discussion, I've updated the links that used to go to the List of Banned editors to Category:Banned Wikipedia users and Wikipedia:Long-term abuse. Both were cited by the discussion as alternative venues for getting information about banned users. --Jayron32 01:17, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm going to nominate the LTA list at MfD as soon as I get to a non-mobile device. There is no logical difference between the two lists, as the "potential" for harm is exactly the same. There is no difference at all. We can't have one enemy list, or two or three, if we are to continue as the "friendly" site. Doc talk 01:23, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
That's beginning to sound a wee bit making a point-ish. Tarc (talk) 01:52, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
There's no having one's cake and eating it too. They are identically purposed "enemies lists" with the exact same potential for abuse. Because one is "liked" more than the other is immaterial. Doc talk 05:05, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
We must not forget to note this per the MfD instructions: "Established pages and their sub-pages should not be nominated, as such nominations will probably be considered disruptive, and the ensuing discussions closed early. This is not a forum for modifying or revoking policy. Instead consider tagging the policy as {{historical}} or redirecting it somewhere." So when I get accused of being "pointy" for being "consistent" with this ridiculous decision, it is duly noted. No more enemies lists of any kind should be allowed here. Period. See you in the funny pages. Doc talk 05:22, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

[KendriaP]

Wikipedia: Where public shaming is allowed and even cool, but saying "cunt" makes you the devil incarnate. At least they deleted it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... ination%29 =

[The Garbage Scow]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Long-term abuse (2nd nomination) (T-H-L)

Some guy that voted keep on the Banned users mfd nominates LTA to make a point. Asshole.

Well, he was just very upset he didn't get his way, I think, after making many, many comments in the AFD arguing to keep. Let's face it, wikipedia wouldn't be wikipedia if you couldn't use all the self-contradictory "rules" to be WP:POINTY when your argument "loses". Here:

Wikipedia talk:Banning policy

Time To Get Censoring
The language of the policy needs to be altered ASAP to avoid further confusion.There now can be no mention of the list of banned users, since it has been deleted after a decidedly inconclusive deletion discussion. I hope there will be a Deletion Review, because: "In deletion discussions, no consensus normally results in the article, page, image, or other content being kept." That should be changed as well, as it is simply not the way it's done around here. Doc talk 23:24, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
All such material that is still required will be moved to WP:LTA, as indicated in the deletion discussion close. Please go ahead and update the documentation. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:29, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
I see no mention of LTA in the discussion close at all. Am I missing it? I see the opinion of one admin, as if we needed the wisdom of a Solomon to decide. (Emphasis mine) "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"." Absurd. Doc talk 23:48, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
I also will not update the documentation here. What I'd really like to add, but cannot, at WP:NOCONSENSUS is the following: "In deletion discussions, no consensus normally results in the article, page, image, or other content being kept. In abnormal or politically-charged deletion discussions, individual closing admins are permitted to interpret their own consensus for the greater protection and good of the project." Can an admin add that for me? Doc talk 00:08, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
I think an admin needs to call a WHAAAMBULANCE for you, tbh. AfDs are not votes, the strength of the arguments are weighed. If many of the "keep" weigh-ins were weak, than that final tally is more one-sided than a numeral 35-33 would suggest. WP:DRV, at your leisure. Tarc (talk) 00:38, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Heh? Piss off with your "whambulance". Way to be a dick. How about you clarify the LTA thing, smartass? Doc talk 00:51, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
In the midst of all this passive-aggressive whinging, there is one good point: the link to the deleted page needs to be removed from this policy. Reyk YO! 00:58, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Ugh. You wanna see "active" aggressive? Doc talk 01:12, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
You seem to be taking the deletion of this page very personally. There are more productive things you could be doing if you feel so strongly about it like going to DRV, instead of complaining and shouting. Reyk YO! 01:21, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip. Doc talk 01:25, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Updated links
Per the recent deletion discussion, I've updated the links that used to go to the List of Banned editors to Category:Banned Wikipedia users and Wikipedia:Long-term abuse. Both were cited by the discussion as alternative venues for getting information about banned users. --Jayron32 01:17, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm going to nominate the LTA list at MfD as soon as I get to a non-mobile device. There is no logical difference between the two lists, as the "potential" for harm is exactly the same. There is no difference at all. We can't have one enemy list, or two or three, if we are to continue as the "friendly" site. Doc talk 01:23, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
That's beginning to sound a wee bit making a point-ish. Tarc (talk) 01:52, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
There's no having one's cake and eating it too. They are identically purposed "enemies lists" with the exact same potential for abuse. Because one is "liked" more than the other is immaterial. Doc talk 05:05, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
We must not forget to note this per the MfD instructions: "Established pages and their sub-pages should not be nominated, as such nominations will probably be considered disruptive, and the ensuing discussions closed early. This is not a forum for modifying or revoking policy. Instead consider tagging the policy as {{historical}} or redirecting it somewhere." So when I get accused of being "pointy" for being "consistent" with this ridiculous decision, it is duly noted. No more enemies lists of any kind should be allowed here. Period. See you in the funny pages. Doc talk 05:22, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

He's having a temper tantrum on his talk page with another editor, too. Will we see ragequit? Only time will tell.

[Jim]

He's having a temper tantrum on his talk page with another editor, too. Will we see ragequit? Only time will tell.

Nah - all I see there is silly verbal jousting with one of "the usual" wikidrama suspects. That's just "wiki biznis is very, very seriuz biznis" as usual.

[EricBarbour]

I'm adding references to this stuff to our wiki articles on Kww, Chillum, Jayron32, and BMK. A loud "KEEP" vote on any of these MFDs is like standing in Wiki-Public and holding up a day-glo orange sign reading "I ENJOY ABUSING AND HUMILIATING PEOPLE".

[Poetlister]

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)

Does John realise what a minority he's in?

[Reaper Eternal]

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)

Does John realise what a minority he's in?

Yes, he does. There are still a few left who realize that taking the moral road is better than giving ear to an anarchic mob crying for blood. This group is suffering from a slow, but steady attrition since fighting the Borg is all but impossible. "Morality be damned! We must have our enemies' heads on pikes!" The cry is reminiscent of the 18th century French Revolution, and, to a lesser degree, the Western Roman Empire's decline.

As I've stepped back from being active on Wikipedia (mostly due to involvements with my job and graduate school), I've noticed the groupthink more and more. It's sad, to say the least when one's efforts to provide a modicum of decency to those who have, rightly or unrightly, been banned from Wikipedia are met with accusations and nigh-instant reverts.

This page seems apt: http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/theory/grpthink.html

Sigh. I am discouraged.

[Kiefer.Wolfowitz]

The Worm That Turned (T-C-L) taketh and giveth away.

With the nomination, Worm did good.

His comment that Demiurge1000 was apparently disingenuous---in having claimed to use the list to identify a sockpuppet he had repeatedly reverted---should have been a decisive counter-example to my sloppy claim that sparing the fun of Demiwit was an (unqualified) imperative for WTT.