martin@myreddice.freeserve.co.uk wrote:
My desires were:
- Single place for discussion - if I want to know "Why was Fred banned?", I should be
able to go to *one* Wikipedia page, read it, and be enlightened.
- Avoid/discourage redundant discussions
- Ability to refactor away redundancy
- Ability to delete page when a banned user is reinstated, or when calls for banning
subside and the sweet voice of reason prevails
Alternatives I can think of immediately:
- Do it on the user talk page
- Have a different name for the page (eg /complaints, /problems, ...)
- Do it on a subpage of [[wikipedia:annoying users]] (eg [[wikipedia:annoying
users/Fred]])
There is much merit to the underlying concepts here. Much of what passes throught the mailing list on these disciplinary issues is tough to read through to get at the facts. It is often very difficult to separate fact from speculative allegations. Some otherwise valuable Wikipedians can take offense very easily, and that can lead to heated debates that may not be based on fact.
I support the idea of a single page somewhere for each of our persistent problem people where there could be shown 1. Just what he did that was so bad, completely dated and documented with links to permit others to view the offense and judge for themselves. Undocumented allegations could be removed immediately as if they never happened. 2. Defenses, whether by the accused or by others. 3. Decisions taken on the matters or about the person. If a ban was appropriate when the ban took place, for how long, and the conditions for reinstatement.
If the lifting of someone's ban includes probationary conditions, Documenting any violations of those conditions would insure that these are not a rehash of what got him banned in the first place.
Ec