List of banned users: proposal

User avatar
Peter Damian
Habitué
Posts: 4201
kołdry
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 8:14 pm
Wikipedia User: Peter Damian
Wikipedia Review Member: Peter Damian
Location: London
Contact:

List of banned users: proposal

Unread post by Peter Damian » Mon Sep 15, 2014 6:43 am

Here, a decent proposal from Mr Craven.

The reaction is predictable:
The people on this list are here because they harmed Wikipedia, and Arbcom or the community took action against them because of it. I am not in any way concerned that these people might be "harmed" by being on this publicly available list, as they have only themselves to blame for it. Individual privacy does not eliminate the community's need to protect itself from harm, nor does it abrogate the necessity of the individual to be responsible for their own actions. BMK (talk) 01:26, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I really don't understand the hand-wringing. The people on this list earned their spot on it. Why would we care about how it effects their emotional state?—Kww(talk) 02:02, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
How many people on that list actually harmed Wikipedia? And of those that did, how many are there because of immaturity, stupidity, emotional instability, or for other reasons for which the 'hand wringing' might be justified? How many were simply victims of a lynch mob?
οὐκ ἀγαθὸν πολυκοιρανίη: εἷς κοίρανος ἔστω

EricBarbour
 
Posts: 10891
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:32 pm
Location: hell

Re: List of banned users: proposal

Unread post by EricBarbour » Mon Sep 15, 2014 6:53 am

Peter Damian wrote:How many people on that list actually harmed Wikipedia? And of those that did, how many are there because of immaturity, stupidity, emotional instability, or for other reasons for which the 'hand wringing' might be justified? How many were simply victims of a lynch mob?
Some deserved the boot, some were provoked into it. Thanks to the machinations of complete bastards like BMK and Kww, it's usually impossible to tell which are which. "Harming Wikipedia" still translates into "got in my way and must be demonized and purged".

Ask certain people on this forum, like Badmachine or Shalom. They'd have a different view. Worm has a damned good point though; that stupid list is nothing but a public stocks, used to shame people who are mostly long gone (or socking successfully) anyway.

User avatar
Zoloft
Trustee
Posts: 13982
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:54 pm
Wikipedia User: Stanistani
Wikipedia Review Member: Zoloft
Actual Name: William Burns
Nom de plume: William Burns
Location: San Diego
Contact:

List of banned users

Unread post by Zoloft » Mon Sep 15, 2014 7:00 am

Here we see Worm That Turned trying to 'do the right thing.'

Shall we keep track of who lines up against him and why?

I invite his opponents to register here, and give us their wisdom.
Let's start with:
Beyond My Ken (T-C-L)
  • Page serves an important function and should be maintained.
  • I don't see the commentary here as anything but neutral recitation of the facts.
  • There's no reason to remove them.
  • Why? People return to editing after long periods of time away, and should not benefit from community "blindness" caused by lack of information about who has been banned.
  • Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses? - Wrong character
Kww (T-C-L)
  • I really don't understand the hand-wringing. The people on this list earned their spot on it.
  • Why would we care about how it effects their emotional state?
  • Humbug! - Wrong character
Somehow, I don't think the Ghost of Christmas Past would make much headway with this group.

My avatar is sometimes indicative of my mood:
  • Actual mug ◄
  • Uncle Cornpone
  • Zoloft bouncy pill-thing


User avatar
Thracia
Critic
Posts: 115
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 1:26 pm

Re: List of banned users: proposal

Unread post by Thracia » Mon Sep 15, 2014 7:21 am

While this discussion says the errant users "only have themselves to blame", I note that the corresponding list of Wikipedia:Former_administrators (T-H-L) underwent a significant re-design on March 28, 2013, one major result of which was the obfuscation of administrator resignations occurring "under a cloud", such that it is no longer possible to find such cases by glancing at the "neutral recitation of the facts" that once appeared on the page.

Compare the old simple list format, complete with helpful footnotes, with the new tidied-away-under-the-carpet version.

EricBarbour
 
Posts: 10891
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:32 pm
Location: hell

Re: List of banned users: proposal

Unread post by EricBarbour » Mon Sep 15, 2014 7:30 am

Thracia wrote:While this discussion says the errant users "only have themselves to blame", I note that the corresponding list of Wikipedia:Former_administrators (T-H-L) underwent a significant re-design on March 28, 2013, one major result of which was the obfuscation of administrator resignations occurring "under a cloud", such that it is no longer possible to find such cases by glancing at the "neutral recitation of the facts" that once appeared on the page.

Compare the old simple list format, complete with helpful footnotes, with the new tidied-away-under-the-carpet version.
You got it. And the only place this change was discussed was on the talkpage, and there's damn little of that.

User avatar
thekohser
Majordomo
Posts: 13406
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 5:07 pm
Wikipedia User: Thekohser
Wikipedia Review Member: thekohser
Actual Name: Gregory Kohs
Location: United States
Contact:

Re: List of banned users

Unread post by thekohser » Mon Sep 15, 2014 10:39 am

Zoloft wrote: Beyond My Ken (T-C-L)
...neutral recitation of the facts.
From the list:

"his activities were an egregious violation of the pillars of the project"

"reblocked for legal intimidation as Zibiki Wym (T-C-L)"

(Go ahead, I defy you to find Zibiki Wym legally intimidating anyone.
"...making nonsensical connections and culminating in feigned surprise, since 2006..."

User avatar
Poetlister
Genius
Posts: 25599
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 8:15 pm
Nom de plume: Poetlister
Location: London, living in a similar way
Contact:

Re: List of banned users: proposal

Unread post by Poetlister » Mon Sep 15, 2014 11:32 am

If this were a list of people who have harmed or are continuing to harm Wikipedia, it might look very different.
"The higher we soar the smaller we appear to those who cannot fly" - Nietzsche

User avatar
Notvelty
Retired
Posts: 1780
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2012 11:51 am
Location: Basement

Re: List of banned users: proposal

Unread post by Notvelty » Mon Sep 15, 2014 1:16 pm

BMK wants people to be responsible for their own actions.

Seems like an invitation to me.
-----------
Notvelty

User avatar
Peter Damian
Habitué
Posts: 4201
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 8:14 pm
Wikipedia User: Peter Damian
Wikipedia Review Member: Peter Damian
Location: London
Contact:

Re: List of banned users: proposal

Unread post by Peter Damian » Mon Sep 15, 2014 6:48 pm

But perhaps Wikipedia has a heart after all.
Support deletion, or at the very least blank it and protect it. Does the Boy Scouts of America have a public webpage listing all the people who've been kicked out of the Boy Scouts? Does General Electric publicly list all the people they've fired and wouldn't rehire? Does Encyclopædia Britannica? No, they don't, and we don't need to either. Put a link to the ban discussion/reason in the person's block log and be done with it. There's no need for a public Enumeration Of The Banned for people to gawk at. The public existence of this list is not required for admins to quickly determine if someone is no longer allowed to edit here. To answer the question below as to why we should care about the feelings of the banned, I would say "because we're not assholes, that's why." Just because someone's not a good fit for this website doesn't mean we can't handle their involuntary departure with a bit of discretion and humanity. 28bytes (talk) 08:23, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Really obvious support - Although this proposal will burn in a fire, I want to go down as having been in ardent support of it. 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.
With that said, if this does get some support, can we please re-shrink the "THIS USER IS PERMABANNINATED!" template to something less self-righteous and demeaning? Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:59, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
οὐκ ἀγαθὸν πολυκοιρανίη: εἷς κοίρανος ἔστω

User avatar
The Garbage Scow
Habitué
Posts: 1735
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 4:00 am
Wikipedia User: The Master

Re: List of banned users: proposal

Unread post by The Garbage Scow » Mon Sep 15, 2014 6:52 pm

Yet another example of subjectivism and inconsistency within "the encyclopedia anyone can edit".

Attack pages are prohibited, unless you make an enemy among the establishment.
But if you get banned and you have friends in the establishment, you won't get tagged or listed.

Ban/block tags and lists of banned users are therefore nothing but attack pages masquerading as something necessary for the administration of the site. Wikipedia is full of this kind of navel-gazing garbage. List of missing editors, wp:facebook, etc. list of banned users, category:blocked users....

Masturbatory garbage.

User avatar
Peter Damian
Habitué
Posts: 4201
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 8:14 pm
Wikipedia User: Peter Damian
Wikipedia Review Member: Peter Damian
Location: London
Contact:

Re: List of banned users: proposal

Unread post by Peter Damian » Mon Sep 15, 2014 7:13 pm

The odd thing is that, having perused BMK’s thoughts, I find myself agreeing with many of them, if not all.
It's very striking that Wikipedia, a project founded on libertarian principles, shares a prominent characterstic with Communism, in that they both intentionally ignore a major aspect of human psychology, the urge toward ownership, and that both did so quite deliberately in the apparent conviction that such a basic component of our makeup can be ignored without serious problems. It didn't work for Communism, which today survives only in a form that neither Marx nor Lenin would recognize, and it's doubtful that, in the long run, Wikipedia can survive unless it too comes to terms with the ownership principle – which it very well may, since the evolution of the project clearly indicates a general trend of undercutting the founding libertarianism by the formation of a governmental apparatus. Of course, which direction that government goes, toward dogmatic authoritarianism or pragmatism, remains to be see. 20:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
And much more. Perhaps this indicates his real state of mind.
Well, Wikipedia is, I think, a lot like "The Theatre". Once it's in your blood, it's goddamn hard to get rid of. Oh, you can fight it, you can resist for short periods of time, maybe even for significant ones, but Wikipedia will call you back again -- and when you return you'll find that it's just as exasperating and annoying and aggravating and enervating and full of assholes and idiots as it was when you left. (If for no other reason, Jimbo Wales will burn forever in Hell because of Wikipedia.) But, like addicts everywhere, you won't be as concerned with the adulterants in your drugs as you will that you get that "kick" than only your personal monkey can deliver, so you'll stick around, at least until the next time you kick.
Everyone is a victim.
οὐκ ἀγαθὸν πολυκοιρανίη: εἷς κοίρανος ἔστω

User avatar
Jim
Blue Meanie
Posts: 4955
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2012 10:33 am
Wikipedia User: Begoon
Wikipedia Review Member: Jim
Location: NSW

Re: List of banned users: proposal

Unread post by Jim » Mon Sep 15, 2014 7:28 pm

Peter Damian wrote:The odd thing is that, having perused BMK’s thoughts, I find myself agreeing with many of them, if not all.
It's very striking that Wikipedia, a project founded on libertarian principles, shares a prominent characterstic with Communism, in that they both intentionally ignore a major aspect of human psychology, the urge toward ownership, and that both did so quite deliberately in the apparent conviction that such a basic component of our makeup can be ignored without serious problems. It didn't work for Communism, which today survives only in a form that neither Marx nor Lenin would recognize, and it's doubtful that, in the long run, Wikipedia can survive unless it too comes to terms with the ownership principle – which it very well may, since the evolution of the project clearly indicates a general trend of undercutting the founding libertarianism by the formation of a governmental apparatus. Of course, which direction that government goes, toward dogmatic authoritarianism or pragmatism, remains to be see. 20:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
That's actually quite weird (or maybe it's just obvious?)
Over in another thread, I was talking about the "perennial" "how do you fix the admin for life" problem with Scott.
Scott made a good point, and in reply, because I was groping for a good solution, and not finding one, I very nearly said:
"Meh - communism couldn't work in the end - maybe this just can't either"
Instead I just said "We are describing a broken system"

BMK often makes good points like that in prose - but he is also ruthless when playing "the game".

Tim believes in communism and wikipedia as workable - maybe he can solve our admin conundrum too?

User avatar
HRIP7
Denizen
Posts: 6953
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 2:05 am
Wikipedia User: Jayen466
Wikipedia Review Member: HRIP7
Actual Name: Andreas Kolbe
Location: UK

Re: List of banned users: proposal

Unread post by HRIP7 » Mon Sep 15, 2014 8:04 pm

Peter Damian wrote:Everyone is a victim.
Quite. It's the instant ego gratification: Wikipedia allows you to feel important, just by typing some sentences on your PC that a moment later can be read by people all over the world. To some extent, that even applies to the critics community: Wikipedia being so important, its critics and would-be reformers must obviously be really important too.

Fuck Wikipedia. :D

User avatar
spartaz
Critic
Posts: 190
Joined: Sun May 06, 2012 3:38 pm
Wikipedia User: Spartaz
Wikipedia Review Member: Spartaz

Re: List of banned users

Unread post by spartaz » Mon Sep 15, 2014 9:03 pm

Zoloft wrote:Here we see Worm That Turned trying to 'do the right thing.'

Shall we keep track of who lines up against him and why?

I invite his opponents to register here, and give us their wisdom.
Let's start with:
Beyond My Ken (T-C-L)
  • Page serves an important function and should be maintained.
  • I don't see the commentary here as anything but neutral recitation of the facts.
  • There's no reason to remove them.
  • Why? People return to editing after long periods of time away, and should not benefit from community "blindness" caused by lack of information about who has been banned.
  • Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses? - Wrong character
Kww (T-C-L)
  • I really don't understand the hand-wringing. The people on this list earned their spot on it.
  • Why would we care about how it effects their emotional state?
  • Humbug! - Wrong character
Somehow, I don't think the Ghost of Christmas Past would make much headway with this group.
I thought Humbug was my line....
Evil by definition
Badly spelled by crappy tablet
Humbugg!

User avatar
Hersch
Retired
Posts: 3719
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 12:09 am
Wikipedia User: Herschelkrustofsky
Wikipedia Review Member: Herschelkrustofsky

Re: List of banned users: proposal

Unread post by Hersch » Tue Sep 16, 2014 12:32 am

As a public service, we should compile a list of banned former administrators. It would include some of WP's most corrupt individuals, second only to some admins who are still in good standing.
“If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing.”
Malcolm X


EricBarbour
 
Posts: 10891
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:32 pm
Location: hell

Re: List of banned users: proposal

Unread post by EricBarbour » Tue Sep 16, 2014 12:35 am

Hersch wrote:As a public service, we should compile a list of banned former administrators. It would include some of WP's most corrupt individuals, second only to some admins who are still in good standing.
It would also include a number of sockpuppets, some of which have never been linked to a "real person". However, if you wish to do the legwork, I'll provide background info.

User avatar
Kumioko
Muted
Posts: 6609
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2013 2:36 am
Wikipedia User: Kumioko; Reguyla
Nom de plume: Persona non grata

Re: List of banned users: proposal

Unread post by Kumioko » Tue Sep 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Notvelty wrote:BMK wants people to be responsible for their own actions.

Seems like an invitation to me.
Yeah BMK is plum F'ing worthless. They do nothing but provoke other editors into confrontations so their supporters can justify using the block function. He is a detriment to the project and should have stayed banned. My opinion of Kww isn't much higher. They are just one of a number of examples of folks who should not be allowed to be admins. Purely abusive and arrogant.

I personally agree with WTT on this one. That page, as well as several others, do nothing but insult and provoke editors. Should some have been banned? Certainly, but there are quite a few on that list who were railroaded out of Wikipedia by POV pushers and those who feel like they own articles. There are also a lot of people on that list who have been gone for more than a decade and I would wager quite a few that are still around but editing as a different name.

User avatar
Jim
Blue Meanie
Posts: 4955
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2012 10:33 am
Wikipedia User: Begoon
Wikipedia Review Member: Jim
Location: NSW

Re: List of banned users: proposal

Unread post by Jim » Tue Sep 16, 2014 4:57 pm

Kumioko wrote:I personally agree with WTT on this one. That page, as well as several others, do nothing but insult and provoke editors.
Well, it's here: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of banned users (6th nomination) now, and it hasn't been SNOW kept, yet.
Most folks saying 'keep' at least say the spiteful grave-dancing bits should be removed from the page. It'll probably be kept, but some folks are at least talking a bit of sense there.

User avatar
Kumioko
Muted
Posts: 6609
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2013 2:36 am
Wikipedia User: Kumioko; Reguyla
Nom de plume: Persona non grata

Re: List of banned users: proposal

Unread post by Kumioko » Tue Sep 16, 2014 5:01 pm

Jim wrote:
Kumioko wrote:I personally agree with WTT on this one. That page, as well as several others, do nothing but insult and provoke editors.
Well, it's here: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of banned users (6th nomination) now, and it hasn't been SNOW kept, yet.
Most folks saying 'keep' at least say the spiteful grave-dancing bits should be removed from the page. It'll probably be kept, but some folks are at least talking a bit of sense there.
Yeah I agree there is some sense. I hope they will at least clean up some of the verbiage of some of them. There is indeed some pretty spiteful comments in some. I would certainly vote to delete were I able too. Maybe when the 7th submission happens.

User avatar
Jim
Blue Meanie
Posts: 4955
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2012 10:33 am
Wikipedia User: Begoon
Wikipedia Review Member: Jim
Location: NSW

Re: List of banned users: proposal

Unread post by Jim » Tue Sep 16, 2014 5:15 pm

Kumioko wrote:I would certainly vote to delete were I able too. Maybe when the 7th submission happens.
Unless I pop over to the list and add some "bad things" about you now...
"Trolls. Uses apostrophes poorly just to upset people." :yikes:
That kind of stuff. :XD

See, that's the point, joking apart. I could do that, saying much worse, and who's to say anyone would revert me?

User avatar
The Garbage Scow
Habitué
Posts: 1735
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 4:00 am
Wikipedia User: The Master

Re: List of banned users: proposal

Unread post by The Garbage Scow » Tue Sep 16, 2014 5:46 pm

EricBarbour wrote:
Hersch wrote:As a public service, we should compile a list of banned former administrators. It would include some of WP's most corrupt individuals, second only to some admins who are still in good standing.
It would also include a number of sockpuppets, some of which have never been linked to a "real person". However, if you wish to do the legwork, I'll provide background info.
Please... oh please... oh please do this.

User avatar
The Garbage Scow
Habitué
Posts: 1735
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 4:00 am
Wikipedia User: The Master

Re: List of banned users: proposal

Unread post by The Garbage Scow » Tue Sep 16, 2014 5:51 pm

The deletion rationales are the ones that actually make the most sense. Many of the keep votes are along the lines of "no procedural rationale for deletion" or "it's useful". In other words, WP:ILIKEIT.

My favorite keep so far is "if you don't like it don't look at it". LOL

User avatar
Hersch
Retired
Posts: 3719
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 12:09 am
Wikipedia User: Herschelkrustofsky
Wikipedia Review Member: Herschelkrustofsky

Re: List of banned users: proposal

Unread post by Hersch » Tue Sep 16, 2014 5:59 pm

Could some Wikipedian in good standing go here and correct the historical record regarding my ban? I was not banned by ArbCom. I was awarded a "community ban" by a community comprised of Will Beback and JoshuaZ. Interestingly, my activity as a moderator at WR was cited as a reason for the ban (actually, I was a staff member there.) Both WB and Jay-Z were subsequently de-sysopped.
“If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing.”
Malcolm X


User avatar
Jim
Blue Meanie
Posts: 4955
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2012 10:33 am
Wikipedia User: Begoon
Wikipedia Review Member: Jim
Location: NSW

Re: List of banned users: proposal

Unread post by Jim » Tue Sep 16, 2014 6:00 pm

The Garbage Scow wrote:The deletion rationales are the ones that actually make the most sense. Many of the keep votes are along the lines of "no procedural rationale for deletion" or "it's useful". In other words, WP:ILIKEIT.

My favorite keep so far is "if you don't like it don't look at it". LOL
That's lovely - that's bus-spotter and long term admin wannabee Rcsprinter123 (T-C-L). :blink:
He's said far funnier things.

You must have missed:
nothing more than blaming the victim and frankly a personal attack against those that created the page.
though?

User avatar
Kumioko
Muted
Posts: 6609
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2013 2:36 am
Wikipedia User: Kumioko; Reguyla
Nom de plume: Persona non grata

Re: List of banned users: proposal

Unread post by Kumioko » Tue Sep 16, 2014 7:07 pm

Jim wrote:
Kumioko wrote:I would certainly vote to delete were I able too. Maybe when the 7th submission happens.
Unless I pop over to the list and add some "bad things" about you now...
"Trolls. Uses apostrophes poorly just to upset people." :yikes:
That kind of stuff. :XD

See, that's the point, joking apart. I could do that, saying much worse, and who's to say anyone would revert me?
Most certainly they would pile on, not revert you. I'm not exactly the most popular cat on the site there anymore. I criticized too many people who aren't there to build articles. They are just interested in accumulating power and being in charge, probably to compensate for their failures in real life. I am fairly disappointed that their peers do not rein them in but its kinda like being in the police force, they don't punish their own. Even when they see something wrong they won't do anything as long as its just to an editor and not to one of the protected classes.

User avatar
The Garbage Scow
Habitué
Posts: 1735
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 4:00 am
Wikipedia User: The Master

Re: List of banned users: proposal

Unread post by The Garbage Scow » Tue Sep 16, 2014 11:02 pm

Jim wrote:You must have missed:
nothing more than blaming the victim and frankly a personal attack against those that created the page.
though?
Ahhhh, the old chestnut "spin your opponent's rationale so you can label it a personal attack". Twas a mighty spin, too.

I totally considered voting delete with the rationale "cruft". That's about as good as some of the keep rationales.

User avatar
Captain Occam
Gregarious
Posts: 886
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 12:08 am

Re: List of banned users: proposal

Unread post by Captain Occam » Wed Sep 17, 2014 11:10 pm

The Garbage Scow wrote:
EricBarbour wrote:
Hersch wrote:As a public service, we should compile a list of banned former administrators. It would include some of WP's most corrupt individuals, second only to some admins who are still in good standing.
It would also include a number of sockpuppets, some of which have never been linked to a "real person". However, if you wish to do the legwork, I'll provide background info.
Please... oh please... oh please do this.
I think this is a great idea as well. It could be one of the most useful features of Wikipediocracy, now that this information apparently is no longer publicly available at Wikipedia.

It should include not only admins who were desysopped, but also those who resigned "under a cloud", or for reasons that weren't revealed in public. For example, I have some evidence that when Shell Kinney (T-C-L) resigned from ArbCom in 2011, the actual reason was that she had been sharing checkuser data with non-admins, and that the other arbitrators made a choice not to disclose this in public. (EricBarbour has seen the reasons why I suspect this.)

EDIT: I misread this suggestion as just "former administrators". What I'd like to see is a complete list of all former admins who lost their admin tools for a reason that reflects poorly on them, along the lines of what Wikipedia had prior to 2013. (This obviously would include banned former admins as well.) A lot of the time, admins merely get desysopped for doing things that would cause an ordinary editor to get banned; I've seen some arbitrators call this the "Super Mario problem".

User avatar
Hersch
Retired
Posts: 3719
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 12:09 am
Wikipedia User: Herschelkrustofsky
Wikipedia Review Member: Herschelkrustofsky

Re: List of banned users: proposal

Unread post by Hersch » Thu Sep 18, 2014 1:01 am

Captain Occam wrote: A lot of the time, admins merely get desysopped for doing things that would cause an ordinary editor to get banned;
(<cough>JoshuaZ)

Therefore, there should be an associated list of admins who merely got desysopped for doing things that would cause an ordinary editor to get banned.
“If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing.”
Malcolm X


EricBarbour
 
Posts: 10891
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:32 pm
Location: hell

Re: List of banned users: proposal

Unread post by EricBarbour » Thu Sep 18, 2014 2:41 am

Captain Occam wrote:For example, I have some evidence that when Shell Kinney (T-C-L) resigned from ArbCom in 2011, the actual reason was that she had been sharing checkuser data with non-admins, and that the other arbitrators made a choice not to disclose this in public. (EricBarbour has seen the reasons why I suspect this.)
:evilgrin:

User avatar
Randy from Boise
Been Around Forever
Posts: 12083
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:32 am
Wikipedia User: Carrite
Wikipedia Review Member: Timbo
Actual Name: Tim Davenport
Nom de plume: T. Chandler
Location: Boise, Idaho

Re: List of banned users: proposal

Unread post by Randy from Boise » Thu Sep 18, 2014 2:18 pm

I just figured out what this thread is about today.

I'm in favor of the list; it not only records "Enemies of the State" it collects links of those who have purged the "Enemies of the State." The list of ArbCom purges, the list of Jimbo purges, is an invaluable historical record.

RfB

User avatar
Jim
Blue Meanie
Posts: 4955
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2012 10:33 am
Wikipedia User: Begoon
Wikipedia Review Member: Jim
Location: NSW

Re: List of banned users: proposal

Unread post by Jim » Thu Sep 18, 2014 2:44 pm

Randy from Boise wrote:I'm in favor of the list; it not only records "Enemies of the State" it collects links of those who have purged the "Enemies of the State." The list of ArbCom purges, the list of Jimbo purges, is an invaluable historical record.
RfB
...and ideal from which to read extracts at the daily "Two Minutes Hate".
The population should be required to learn the list, and be randomly, unexpectedly tested for correct knowledge of it. Get it wrong - hey, you're on the list...
Just don't forget to update the "Enemies of the State" and the "purgers" daily so that nobody reads out "Eastasia" when it's supposed to be "Eurasia" this week.
:littlejoe:

User avatar
thekohser
Majordomo
Posts: 13406
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 5:07 pm
Wikipedia User: Thekohser
Wikipedia Review Member: thekohser
Actual Name: Gregory Kohs
Location: United States
Contact:

Re: List of banned users: proposal

Unread post by thekohser » Thu Sep 18, 2014 3:38 pm

Randy from Boise wrote:I'm in favor of the list; it not only records "Enemies of the State" it ... is an invaluable historical record.
Sometimes even with false documentation of the record! (Are you in favor of that, Tim?) (Would you be willing to correct the record about my ban, as long as the list survives?)
"...making nonsensical connections and culminating in feigned surprise, since 2006..."

User avatar
Peter Damian
Habitué
Posts: 4201
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 8:14 pm
Wikipedia User: Peter Damian
Wikipedia Review Member: Peter Damian
Location: London
Contact:

Re: List of banned users: proposal

Unread post by Peter Damian » Thu Sep 18, 2014 6:29 pm

Randy from Boise wrote:I just figured out what this thread is about today.

I'm in favor of the list; it not only records "Enemies of the State" it collects links of those who have purged the "Enemies of the State." The list of ArbCom purges, the list of Jimbo purges, is an invaluable historical record.

RfB
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)
Well f--- you. There is no evidence the list is any use, as a hundred people have already pointed out. And my name is on the list. People there are saying that banned users have harmed Wikipedia, that they are noxious and so forth. I have never harmed Wikipedia. I contributed a large part of what little they have in my specialist area. I want my name off that list, and preferably the list deleted. If you want a ‘historical record’, then make a copy.

I’m disappointed. Occasionally you make very good points. This time, you are acting like a true Wikipedian.
οὐκ ἀγαθὸν πολυκοιρανίη: εἷς κοίρανος ἔστω

User avatar
thekohser
Majordomo
Posts: 13406
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 5:07 pm
Wikipedia User: Thekohser
Wikipedia Review Member: thekohser
Actual Name: Gregory Kohs
Location: United States
Contact:

Re: List of banned users: proposal

Unread post by thekohser » Thu Sep 18, 2014 7:19 pm

I think it is interesting to look at the people who voted for my first "community ban".

Proposing the ban:
* Peter M Dodge (T-C-L) - Quit in February 2009

Supporting the ban:
* JzG (T-C-L) - Still going strong, even though publicly shamed for being an asshole and hauled before ArbCom.

* Shadow1 (T-C-L) - No edits since May 2009.

* Veinor (T-C-L) - Hasn't been seen since February 2013, and only 12 edits since 2010.

* ReyBrujo (T-C-L) - Also hasn't been seen since February 2013, the same week that Veinor disappeared. I'm sure that's a coincidence, right?

* Chick Bowen (T-C-L) - Hasn't been seen for 6 months.

* Nixeagle (T-C-L) (formerly User:Eagle 101) - Nothing since September 2011.

* Sam Blacketer (T-C-L) - Still going strong, despite being publicly shamed in the national media for manipulating Wikipedia for political gain, and forced to resign from ArbCom.

What a lovely bunch of jurors, eh?
"...making nonsensical connections and culminating in feigned surprise, since 2006..."

User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31488
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: List of banned users: proposal

Unread post by Vigilant » Thu Sep 18, 2014 7:25 pm

Peter Damian wrote:
Randy from Boise wrote:I just figured out what this thread is about today.

I'm in favor of the list; it not only records "Enemies of the State" it collects links of those who have purged the "Enemies of the State." The list of ArbCom purges, the list of Jimbo purges, is an invaluable historical record.

RfB
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)
Well f--- you. There is no evidence the list is any use, as a hundred people have already pointed out. And my name is on the list. People there are saying that banned users have harmed Wikipedia, that they are noxious and so forth. I have never harmed Wikipedia. I contributed a large part of what little they have in my specialist area. I want my name off that list, and preferably the list deleted. If you want a ‘historical record’, then make a copy.

I’m disappointed. Occasionally you make very good points. This time, you are acting like a true Wikipedian.
I have to agree.

I think it remarkably hypocritical the squawking over Hivemind given the utter lack of compassion shown here.
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

EricBarbour
 
Posts: 10891
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:32 pm
Location: hell

Re: List of banned users: proposal

Unread post by EricBarbour » Thu Sep 18, 2014 7:35 pm

Randy from Boise wrote:I just figured out what this thread is about today.

I'm in favor of the list; it not only records "Enemies of the State" it collects links of those who have purged the "Enemies of the State." The list of ArbCom purges, the list of Jimbo purges, is an invaluable historical record.

RfB
Tim, have you forgotten to take your meds today? If you're not on meds, maybe you should be.

Numerous entries in that list are utter bullshit. They link to banishments of editors who were tossed out and humiliated, not because they were "bad people". Because they were editwarring with insiders who pulled tricks to get them banned.

Badmachine was blocked improperly and out of process.

Guido den Broeder was a good content writer who objected to having others mangle his writing.

Ask Captain Occam why he's on the "precious list".

The 172/Cognition case was a completely stupid, vile, ruinous mess. Administrators involved abused their own policies repeatedly.

Ask ColtonCosmic why he was banned.

Ask Jon Awbrey why he was banned.

Ask Kumioko why he was banned.

Ask Thorsten Pattberg (Pattberg (T-C-L)) why he was banned.

GoRight was pushed out for one reason: Raul654 hated him personally. No other reason, good or bad.

If you were Don Murphy, wouldn't you object to being defamed on Wikipedia? Then why is ColScott banned for eternity?

And you know goddamned well why Daniel Brandt is on that list. They created a WP biography of him, specifically to defame him. Nineteen times.

In addition, there are many, many nut-cases still on Wikipedia who SHOULD be banned, and aren't. I'm thinking of Okip (still editing under another sock), MONGO, BMK, Northamerica1000, Demiurge (still editing under another sock), A Nobody (still editing under yet another sock), and many others.

In short, this list is a travesty and an insult.

User avatar
Hersch
Retired
Posts: 3719
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 12:09 am
Wikipedia User: Herschelkrustofsky
Wikipedia Review Member: Herschelkrustofsky

Re: List of banned users: proposal

Unread post by Hersch » Thu Sep 18, 2014 7:36 pm

Peter Damian wrote:
Randy from Boise wrote:I just figured out what this thread is about today.

I'm in favor of the list; it not only records "Enemies of the State" it collects links of those who have purged the "Enemies of the State." The list of ArbCom purges, the list of Jimbo purges, is an invaluable historical record.

RfB
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)
Well f--- you. There is no evidence the list is any use, as a hundred people have already pointed out. And my name is on the list. People there are saying that banned users have harmed Wikipedia, that they are noxious and so forth. I have never harmed Wikipedia. I contributed a large part of what little they have in my specialist area. I want my name off that list, and preferably the list deleted. If you want a ‘historical record’, then make a copy.

I’m disappointed. Occasionally you make very good points. This time, you are acting like a true Wikipedian.
Actually, I think Randy's intentions are good here. As I understand it, he wants to preserve the list in order to document admin and/or god-king misconduct.
“If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing.”
Malcolm X


EricBarbour
 
Posts: 10891
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:32 pm
Location: hell

Re: List of banned users: proposal

Unread post by EricBarbour » Thu Sep 18, 2014 7:40 pm

Hersch wrote:Actually, I think Randy's intentions are good here. As I understand it, he wants to preserve the list in order to document admin and/or god-king misconduct.
Then he can try to talk whoever controls that list to clearly mark the cases of insider abuse. Some of Wikipedia's worst admins and ex-admins (Beeblebrox, Ryulong, Sandstein, JzG) have added entries to it in recent months. Why is Ryulong allowed to add entries?? Why is obvious Wikiproject Medicine sockpuppet Jinkinson allowed to add entries? Why did they allow obvious sock Mr. Wikipediania (T-C-L) to edit the list?

User avatar
The Garbage Scow
Habitué
Posts: 1735
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 4:00 am
Wikipedia User: The Master

Re: List of banned users: proposal

Unread post by The Garbage Scow » Thu Sep 18, 2014 8:05 pm

There are even socks voting and commenting at the XfD. For example, who is ImprovingWiki/Love dance of scorpions?

User avatar
Jim
Blue Meanie
Posts: 4955
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2012 10:33 am
Wikipedia User: Begoon
Wikipedia Review Member: Jim
Location: NSW

Re: List of banned users: proposal

Unread post by Jim » Thu Oct 02, 2014 10:23 pm

Closed as Delete
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of banned users (6th nomination) (T-H-L)
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)

EricBarbour
 
Posts: 10891
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:32 pm
Location: hell

Re: List of banned users: proposal

Unread post by EricBarbour » Thu Oct 02, 2014 10:40 pm

Don't worry, it'll be recreated within a few months.
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)
So saith one of the worst administrators in WP history.

User avatar
Jim
Blue Meanie
Posts: 4955
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2012 10:33 am
Wikipedia User: Begoon
Wikipedia Review Member: Jim
Location: NSW

Re: List of banned users: proposal

Unread post by Jim » Thu Oct 02, 2014 11:08 pm

EricBarbour wrote:
Don't worry, it'll be recreated within a few months.
Oh, I'm sure you're right. They can have a Deletion Review to start with. Won't that be fun?
Nevertheless, I enjoyed the result, and mentally picturing the "goldfish mouth" expressions it will inspire.

User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31488
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: List of banned users: proposal

Unread post by Vigilant » Thu Oct 02, 2014 11:11 pm

Jim wrote:
EricBarbour wrote:
Don't worry, it'll be recreated within a few months.
Oh, I'm sure you're right. They can have a Deletion Review to start with. Won't that be fun?
Nevertheless, I enjoyed the result, and mentally picturing the "goldfish mouth" expressions it will inspire.
And on the other side a bunch of "O face"s.

O, O, O, you know what I mean, O...
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

User avatar
Jim
Blue Meanie
Posts: 4955
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2012 10:33 am
Wikipedia User: Begoon
Wikipedia Review Member: Jim
Location: NSW

Re: List of banned users: proposal

Unread post by Jim » Thu Oct 02, 2014 11:18 pm

Vigilant wrote:
Jim wrote:
EricBarbour wrote:
Don't worry, it'll be recreated within a few months.
Oh, I'm sure you're right. They can have a Deletion Review to start with. Won't that be fun?
Nevertheless, I enjoyed the result, and mentally picturing the "goldfish mouth" expressions it will inspire.
And on the other side a bunch of "O face"s.

O, O, O, you know what I mean, O...
:XD Yeah, that too... I went 'O'.

User avatar
Midsize Jake
Site Admin
Posts: 9872
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 11:10 pm
Wikipedia Review Member: Somey

Re: List of banned users: proposal

Unread post by Midsize Jake » Thu Oct 02, 2014 11:39 pm

Well, let's be fair. This is a nice, not to mention unusually wise, thing for them to have done and they should be commended for it. Sure, there will probably be "deletion reviews" and eventually it might be restored, but until that happens they should be given props for doing the right thing.

So, good job, Wikipedians! And this coming from someone who has never even had an account, in case that helps. :)

User avatar
Montoya
Contributor
Posts: 15
Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2014 9:37 pm

Re: List of banned users: proposal

Unread post by Montoya » Thu Oct 02, 2014 11:54 pm

Midsize Jake wrote:Well, let's be fair. This is a nice, not to mention unusually wise, thing for them to have done and they should be commended for it. Sure, there will probably be "deletion reviews" and eventually it might be restored, but until that happens they should be given props for doing the right thing.

So, good job, Wikipedians! And this coming from someone who has never even had an account, in case that helps. :)
:applause:
"You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means"

User avatar
Randy from Boise
Been Around Forever
Posts: 12083
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:32 am
Wikipedia User: Carrite
Wikipedia Review Member: Timbo
Actual Name: Tim Davenport
Nom de plume: T. Chandler
Location: Boise, Idaho

Re: List of banned users: proposal

Unread post by Randy from Boise » Fri Oct 03, 2014 12:23 am

Hersch wrote:
Peter Damian wrote:
Randy from Boise wrote:I just figured out what this thread is about today.

I'm in favor of the list; it not only records "Enemies of the State" it collects links of those who have purged the "Enemies of the State." The list of ArbCom purges, the list of Jimbo purges, is an invaluable historical record.

RfB
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)
Well f--- you. There is no evidence the list is any use, as a hundred people have already pointed out. And my name is on the list. People there are saying that banned users have harmed Wikipedia, that they are noxious and so forth. I have never harmed Wikipedia. I contributed a large part of what little they have in my specialist area. I want my name off that list, and preferably the list deleted. If you want a ‘historical record’, then make a copy.

I’m disappointed. Occasionally you make very good points. This time, you are acting like a true Wikipedian.
Actually, I think Randy's intentions are good here. As I understand it, he wants to preserve the list in order to document admin and/or god-king misconduct.
Yes.

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

User avatar
Konveyor Belt
Gregarious
Posts: 696
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2014 11:46 pm
Wikipedia User: formerly Konveyor Belt

Re: List of banned users: proposal

Unread post by Konveyor Belt » Fri Oct 03, 2014 2:09 am

Randy from Boise wrote:
Hersch wrote:
Peter Damian wrote:
Randy from Boise wrote:I just figured out what this thread is about today.

I'm in favor of the list; it not only records "Enemies of the State" it collects links of those who have purged the "Enemies of the State." The list of ArbCom purges, the list of Jimbo purges, is an invaluable historical record.

RfB
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)
Well f--- you. There is no evidence the list is any use, as a hundred people have already pointed out. And my name is on the list. People there are saying that banned users have harmed Wikipedia, that they are noxious and so forth. I have never harmed Wikipedia. I contributed a large part of what little they have in my specialist area. I want my name off that list, and preferably the list deleted. If you want a ‘historical record’, then make a copy.

I’m disappointed. Occasionally you make very good points. This time, you are acting like a true Wikipedian.
Actually, I think Randy's intentions are good here. As I understand it, he wants to preserve the list in order to document admin and/or god-king misconduct.
Yes.

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
That road forks both ways, Randy. It's a wall of shame for both admins and banned users.

The real question is, by deleting the page, whose side did they help? Both? Neither?
Always improving...

User avatar
The Garbage Scow
Habitué
Posts: 1735
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 4:00 am
Wikipedia User: The Master

Re: List of banned users: proposal

Unread post by The Garbage Scow » Fri Oct 03, 2014 3:18 am

I'm glad to see it gone and consider it a win for the side of good. This is a nice precedent and I was really pleased to see John weigh the strength of the arguments and make a decision instead of the usual "no consensus" cop out that usually happens.

I'm waiting for the DRV and certain characters to take to the usual backroom methods to get it restored or rebuilt under a different name (IRC, Jimbo's talk page, whatever), and John has probably made a few enemies for life.

EricBarbour
 
Posts: 10891
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:32 pm
Location: hell

Re: List of banned users: proposal

Unread post by EricBarbour » Fri Oct 03, 2014 3:23 am

Randy wrote:
Hersch wrote:
Peter Damian wrote: I’m disappointed. Occasionally you make very good points. This time, you are acting like a true Wikipedian.
Actually, I think Randy's intentions are good here. As I understand it, he wants to preserve the list in order to document admin and/or god-king misconduct.
Yes.
Well, then give me a copy of it. Only then will it be "safe" from endless hacking, fiddling and deletion/recreation/whatever.

Post Reply