I'm sending this just to wikien-l rather than wikipedia-l, but it's sort of a close call. It's just that I think (but correct me if I'm wrong) that the custom of /ban pages is primarily an en: custom, not followed elsewhere.
I'm generally opposed to the making of /ban pages as places to discuss why a person should or should not be banned, and I hope that the custom will soon fall out of favor. The reason is that I think it tends to make problems worse instead of better.
It puts people on the defensive, it is a personal attack on them, and it raises the 'stakes' in disputes in such a way that peaceful resolution is less likely rather than more likely.
If you need a place to catalog evidence, I'd recommend doing it privately, on a file on your own computer. When you've got a ton of goods on someone, email it to me privately if you like. Public accusations tend to hurt feelings and leave permanent problems. I do respect confidences, so if you want to complain about something, hey, I'm here. It's what I do.
Publicly, it'd be fine to post that same evidence right on the person's user_talk page, but phrased as kindly as you can possibly stand.
For some jerks, it won't matter if you make a ban page or be nice to them or what. They'll just be jerks. That's fine, just leave me a nice clean paper trail of how everyone was nice and kind and this jerk kept exploding or doing POV things. Then a ban is uncontroversial.
But for some people, the ones who just didn't know how our culture works, or the ones who are difficult personalities but willing to try to keep themselves under control, I think a kinder approach will be a lot more effective.
As an example of something that I really didn't like to see, someone set up a page the other day where other people could vote on banning someone. Well, that's just going to anger them more, and anyhow, we don't vote on bans anyway. We never have, and if we were going to do that, we'd have to have a huge discussion over the best way to do it, etc. There's a huge mess of thorns there.
In short, I'm asking (and this is a 'please' in the sense of a genuine request, not a veiled command!) that we discontinue this practice.
--Jimbo
At 01:25 PM 8/21/2003, you wrote:
In short, I'm asking (and this is a 'please' in the sense of a genuine request, not a veiled command!) that we discontinue this practice.
--Jimbo
Hah! The terrible dictator Jimbo once again uses his vast powers to force us into submission!!! ;)
Seriously though, I support the ending of the /ban pages practice. I think that /ban pages should be reserved for when a user has been banned already, not for when they've just been "nominated" for a ban. Perhaps if we had a page, [[Wikipedia:Nominations for banning]], that would help things along, then, if a ban is successful, the appropriate portion of that page could be copied to the /ban page.
I know that Jimbo requested that the evidence be gathered silently and privately, but realistically, I don't think that is appropriate. First of all, how is someone else to know that a user is being investigated for banning? If user A is gathering information on user B, it is possible that user C would have relevant experience, but not know to give it.
Second of all, in the interest of transparency, I think that every stage of something as serious as banning (which is more serious than page deletion, which we all agree should be fully transparent) should be open and fully available for perusal.
There is also the possibility that it's time to revamp the banning process. While Jimbo certainly does an excellent job, we can't ask him to be the final word on banning forever. Perhaps we need a convention on a new method of banning?
In any event, I agree with Jimbo that we should stop using /ban pages just to store information on why we think people should be banned.
----- Dante Alighieri dalighieri@digitalgrapefruit.com
"The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of great moral crisis." -Dante Alighieri, 1265-1321
--- Dante Alighieri dalighieri@digitalgrapefruit.com wrote:
Seriously though, I support the ending of the /ban pages practice. I think that /ban pages should be reserved for when a user has been banned already, not for when they've just been "nominated" for a ban. Perhaps if we had a page, [[Wikipedia:Nominations for banning]], that would help things along, then, if a ban is successful, the appropriate portion of that page could be copied to the /ban page.
I disagree with they should be used at all within the user namespace -- either the user is still present and this is an invasion of their "area"- - - or its just going to be copied for cases pending (which is where this whole thing came from.)
If there is problem usercase to be solved, I think these be on meta as something like [[Case user:Name]]. This is best done by a neutral party, who can then take specific complaints and list them.
So I say no /ban pages period -- so that nobody gets in the habit. If a username has been banned, then their userpage itself has the ban notice or a link to a page on meta with all the details.
-S-
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
Dante Alighieri wrote:
I know that Jimbo requested that the evidence be gathered silently and privately, but realistically, I don't think that is appropriate. First of all, how is someone else to know that a user is being investigated for banning? If user A is gathering information on user B, it is possible that user C would have relevant experience, but not know to give it.
Well, there are pro's and con's.
Second of all, in the interest of transparency, I think that every stage of something as serious as banning (which is more serious than page deletion, which we all agree should be fully transparent) should be open and fully available for perusal.
That's certainly true. I absolutely don't want to open a new can of headaches for me with claims that there are secret tribunals and what not.
My main point is that we should all recognize that publicly identifying someone as a problem user who should be banned can *itself* generate the sort of bad behavior that we hope to avoid. Not always, and as I acknowledged, in many cases, the problem users are just simply impossible to deal with. Some are actual crackpots. Some are just jerks.
But fairly often, and I'm not the one who first identified this, we have the problem of turning a mildly problematic user into an arch-enemy with an extensive grudge against us.
--Jimbo