Axel Boldt wrote:
--- cprompt cprompt@tmbg.org wrote:
Instead of blanking articles why not replace the article text with a redirect to a boilerplate text with something along the lines of "The content of this article is being disputed. It has been blanked for the time being, though older version are still accessible through the Page History. It may have been blanked because of blatantly false
information, or non-encyclopedic garbage. This article may be awaiting [[votes for deletion]], or awaiting a sysop to delete it. Please use the Talk Page to discuss this dispute if necessary, and check [[Votes for Deletion]]"
I disagree with this in the case of removing work by banned users, for the following reasons:
- it is factually incorrect: the work was not removed because it is
"disputed", but because it was contributed by a person who is not allowed to contribute.
- talking about "disputed" and "older version" implies that it may be a
good idea to look at the old material and check whether it is worth restoring. But that is precisely what should *not* be done in the case of a soft ban. Treating the banned user's contributions on their merits just encourages him/her to contribute more.
Axel
Brion linked to Ward's wiki boilerplate text ( http://c2.com/cgi-bin/wiki?DeleteTestAndWelcome) and Toby suggested we have several boilerplate texts to use in certain situations. You make a good point in that the text I suggested might legitimize the work of a banned user. Perhaps the boilerplate text in that particular situation could be "The text in this article was created by a user who is banned from using the Wikipedia. This page will eventually be removed by an administrator and may in the future be replaced by the work of a valid contributor."
If no one else would like to undertake the task of writing out the boilerplate texts, I'll add it to my todo list.
--cprompt