Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:02, 23 August 2010

• WP:AN
• WP:ANB

• For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
• To request review of an administrator's action or other use of advanced permissions, use Misplaced Pages:Administrative action review
• If you are new, try the Teahouse instead.
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead, follow the instructions on Misplaced Pages:Requests for oversight.
• For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent.
• Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here.
• Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• If you want to challenge the closure of a request for comment, use {{RfC closure review}}

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.

You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)

Template:Active editnotice

New Category:Formerly banned users

I have created this cat because I think this could very helpful in tracking what happens to users whose bans have expired or who manage to get their bans lifted. It would make it easier to see which of them re-offend and are re-banned, which have honestly learned to edit productively, and which simply go away after winning their battle to be unbanned. However, I just created it and at present it only contains the most recently unbanned user. So, if anyone's got any names to add it would be appreciated. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

What sorts of ban do you mean — a total siteban of any period of time, or topicbans as well? Nyttend (talk) 20:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:List of banned users has a list of formerly banned users. Besides the former Betacommand, it lists TheJazzFan, Seeyou, Piotrus, Petri Krohn, Locke Cole, Lightmouse, Jack Merridew, Ulises Heureaux (formerly known as "Encyclopedist"), DanaUllman, Boodlesthecat, and Avg. I suspect that there are plenty more who were banned for specific periods of time and simply forgotten about. Nyttend (talk) 20:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• Is this meant to be an opt-in or mandatory category? I know that User:Jack Merridew would likely happily place himself into it, but I'm not sure that such scarlet letters (whether or not that is the intent, the result is the same) are needed (or indeed appropriate) for users who've been unbanned - not to mention the fact that we already have a list. –xeno 20:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

This category is designed to be included in the unbanned user's user page. Basically, it should only contain unbanned users – users who have previously been banned but is currently unbanned and unblocked. Also, I've integrated that category into the {{Unbanned}} template. /HeyMid (contributions) 20:44, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

If you are replying to me, that hasn't answered the question as to whether users are to be placed into this category by others (possibly against their will - which I think is wrongheaded and runs counter to forgive and forget), or if it will be a voluntary opt-in category. –xeno 20:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I was just considering the scarlet letter aspect of it, as that is certainly not the intention. Although this is not the normal reasoning, I though making it a WP:HIDDENCAT would deal with that. I hadn't intended it to apply to topic bans. I wouldn't consider it mandatory either, but if it is hidden there is little reason to object. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I would suspect a good number of editors have hidden categories displayed, it doesn't do much to dilute the scarlet aspect. –xeno 20:51, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• What is the purpose of such a list? Unbanned means the same as not banned or never banned as regards access to the editing tools - it depends on whether you are blocked or not - and there are many "never banned" editors who have little chance of gaining access to enhanced permissions owing to perceived issues with past behaviours. Unless you are hoping to encourage banned users to sock themselves back into responsible editing - knowing that their old account will be forever linked to an episode in their past - I see no good coming of having a list of people who were once denied access to this site. I am not convinced of the worth, now that I know of it, of having that sublist on the banned page. If we want to have editors retain their original username for their editing career, I think we need remove these public "marks of shame". LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

LHvU, I really must object to your use of "compulsory tattooing" in your previous edit comment. That's rather sensationalistic and over the top, and practically an invocation of Godwin's law. Regardless of whether or not this category is a good idea, that sort of hyperbole seems completely unnecessary and could easily be offensive to some. Yworo (talk) 20:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

That was the intent. I might have written "Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Formerly Banned Users editors list" but most here seem have fallen for the current claptrap that Communism is intrinsically evil and the point lost. This is a website whose purpose is to create a free and comprehensive encyclopedia, not a vehicle for the stigmatisation of some editors. Those who are banned, like those who are blocked, are the unfortunate few who are unable to work collegiately with the majority - we should not continue to victimise those who have returned to the project, but rather ensure that they are treated the same as those who have never been banned. This category flies in the face of that. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

You are very articulate and I'm sure you can get your point across without hyperbole. I do have one concern, and that is I'd like to know whether unbanned users experience any difficulty or harassment due to their former status. I suspect they do, even without a category. It seems to me that if this is done as an indication of an exemplary turnaround in attitude and behavior, it could be more of a badge of accomplishment than of shame... Yworo (talk) 21:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they do. I was commended for making a clean return from an indefinite ban by the arbitration committee and get my past thrown in my face and used as a weapon against me all the time.

		The Resilient Barnstar
		For a successful and legitimate return after a siteban. Keep setting the example and showing it's possible! Durova 17:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I got a barnstar regarding this, too. Yet, I'm Branded (TV series)#The show proper for life. Jack Merridew 22:41, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's a nice barnstar. :-) But I'm sorry to hear how you are treated after making good your errors. Yworo (talk) 01:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Terima kasih. I made two errors, one in 2006, and another in 2008. No one's perfect. Jack Merridew 02:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• Was there a discussion about this Cat? I would like to review it and contribute my concerns. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:53, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• This appears to have been a bold creation by Beeblebrox (talk · contribs) after closing this unban discussion. I suspect he hasn't fully thought through the implications of such a category being involuntary added to user pages, and I've suggested he cease adding it until this discussion and any attendant discussions (CFD, etc.) have run their course. –xeno 20:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• I just created it about an hour ago along with {{unbanned}}, which is intended to replace {{banned}}, when a user is unbanned as the banning template is often the only thing on their userpage. The purpose is not to humiliate anyone (indeed it is a sign of trust to get unbanned) but rather to aid in tracking what happens after, as explained at the top of this section. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• Regardless of intent, the result is the same: the unbanned editor is branded, and any kind of forgive and forget mentality goes out the window. If this category is to exist, imo it should be opt-in only. –xeno 21:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe we should ask some of the actual unbanned users what they think. Since neither of us have ever been banned this is a fairly hypothetical discussion. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Not a bad idea. I've already pinged Jack when I mentioned his name, I see you pinged BC/D when you added the cat. –xeno 21:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll third that, see my observation above in response to LHvU. Yworo (talk) 21:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Question - How do we keep track of, or how do we currently know who has been banned in the past?--Jojhutton (talk) 21:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

(ec)(outdent) Although I see and understand and appreciate the idea, this discussion might be better served at VPP, to the talkpage for WP:BAN or Unban, or elsewhere...we seem too early to be having it here, now (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Ugh. What an awful proposal. I note the purpose outlined by the OP but such labels are never used in that way. This amounts to little more than a scarlet letter. It will be divisive and disruptive. There is something faintly odious about the whole proposal. MtD (talk) 21:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Are the users allowed to not have it if they don't like it? Off2riorob (talk) 21:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• Note: I have proposed the deletion of this category at CfD, which is the correct venue for the discussion anyway, I believe. GiftigerWunsch 21:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

No, that's the actual wrong place at the moment. This template might have potential - the locations I noted are the first step before deletion, and nom was a pretty bad move IMHO (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty open about my past. I think that's a good thing, and should be encouraged. My userpage has long been clear about my past. At various times, it has listed me as things such as a sock, indef'd, sported a block button, offered the text of relevant motions. Xeno notified me of this, and I was 'tagged' while reading this. I also see that I was added to the dubious list of the 'formerly banned' and that it was done recently using {{vandal}}, which is not accurate. And I don't believe I was ever on that list while 'banned'. While indef'd, my user page never said banned, it said blocked indef/sock (because trancluded pages are used in the page, the bottom is not quite what was displayed, but the boxes are what was up-top, most of the time; earlier versions of the bottom content were present, too).

I have at various times been encouraged to say less about my history, or more, or to say it differently, and in different ways. I got shite for listing my prior accounts on my user page. This account was created to evade my earlier-yet past; i.e. it's a 'sock' and in that sense always will be. And I was directed by the AC to use *this* account, so I do. This was, in part because I don't have control of my original account as I fully scuttled it, and the other accounts had few fewer edits than I had as 'Jack' which is what I am most widely known as; I have proved in many ways that they're all me. They 'point' at this account and there very much is a Scarlet Letter aspect to this. The 'tattooing' metaphor is not off, as that's what all the demonization is about. It's in-out group]]-thinking:

In sociology, an ingroup is a social group towards which an individual feels loyalty and respect, usually due to membership in the group. This loyalty often manifests itself as an ingroup bias. Commonly encountered ingroups include family members, people of the same race, culture, gender or religion, and so on. Research demonstrates that people often privilege ingroup members over outgroup members even when the ingroup has no actual social standing; for instance, a group of people with the same color shirts, when the other group has another color of shirt. The term originates from social identity theory.

In sociology, an outgroup is a social group towards which an individual feels contempt, opposition, or a desire to compete. Members of outgroups may be subject to outgroup homogeneity biases, and generally people tend to privilege ingroup members over outgroup members in many situations. The term originates from social identity theory.

We call this toxic-wiki-shite. This place is poisonous.

I do believe Beeblebrox means well with this, and am not miffed about being tagged. Should I be? I was considering adding myself. If I had, would it have been about transparency? Acceding to community wishes? Or would it have been about sticking it in the faces of my critics?

I'm hitting edit conflicts here, and I see new stuff has appeared while I've been writing, and see that it's a CfD, now, so I'm gonna just save this as-is into a fast moving discussion.

Sincerely, Jack Merridew 21:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

p.s. I forgot to mention Daedalus tagging Giano's page and The Bish/Jimbo Affair ;O which did get him out of the blocking business. Cheers, Jack Merridew 22:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards