Jimbo said: "I, too, object strongly to this practice of creating '/ban' pages as a place to complain about people. It seems likely to escalate a conflict rather than to resolve it."
response copied to [[meta:talk:bans and blocks]], for those who miss the "edit this page" button. I know I do. :-)
Can we, between ourselves, find a better solution than /ban pages? Prior to my (groundbreaking ;-) creation of the first ever /ban page, best practice seemed to edit [[wikipedia:annoying users]], [[wikipedia:vandalism in progress]], [[user talk:USER NAME]], [[wikipedia:village pump]], any and all talk pages for articles that the user in question had edited, various talk pages of interested sysops ("I think it's Fred", "I agree - it's Fred", "It's definitely Fred!", etc), and also to make long posts to the mailing list in which one is either "shocked", "appalled", or (ideally) "shocked and appalled".
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]])
-Martin "Never met a vandal he didn't like" Harper (aka MyRedDice)
Most of those suggestions are good, but I've written some minor critism
--- martin@myreddice.freeserve.co.uk wrote:
Jimbo said: "I, too, object strongly to this practice of creating '/ban' pages as a place to complain about people. It seems likely to escalate a conflict rather than to resolve it."
response copied to [[meta:talk:bans and blocks]], for those who miss the "edit this page" button. I know I do. :-)
Can we, between ourselves, find a better solution than /ban pages? Prior to my (groundbreaking ;-) creation of the first ever /ban page, best practice seemed to edit [[wikipedia:annoying users]], [[wikipedia:vandalism in progress]], [[user talk:USER NAME]], [[wikipedia:village pump]], any and all talk pages for articles that the user in question had edited, various talk pages of interested sysops ("I think it's Fred", "I agree - it's Fred", "It's definitely Fred!", etc), and also to make long posts to the mailing list in which one is either "shocked", "appalled", or (ideally) "shocked and appalled".
Yes, this problem needs to be solved. On a side note, I'm sure Fred is very insulted :)
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
I agree
Alternatives I can think of immediately:
- Do it on the user talk page
wouldn't make a difference.
- Have a different name for the page (eg
/complaints, /problems, ...)
sounds like doublespeak
- Do it on a subpage of [[wikipedia:annoying users]]
(eg [[wikipedia:annoying users/Fred]])
makes most sense, moving away from their userpage. After all, it's *their* page, not ours to conspire against them on. But "annoying" seems a little too strong; how about "contraversial users"?
-Martin "Never met a vandal he didn't like" Harper (aka MyRedDice)
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com
martin@myreddice.freeserve.co.uk wrote:
- Have a different name for the page (eg /complaints, /problems, ...)
How about something like /Peace. You post on that page with ideas that you think would make both you and that person happier together.
I'm half-joking, but my point is just this: when we kick off a discussion of a problem with a page called /ban or /complaints or /problems, we cause people to go into defensive modes of behavior that can lead to ego-battles that prevent productive solutions.
Of course there *are* people who can't be reached out to peacefully. They will lie and cheat and backstab and keep being mean. If that happens, then, yeah, the best thing we've come up with so far is to ask them to leave (and to ban them).
But that's a sad last resort for those few malcontents who won't talk amiably about what's going on.
--Jimbo
Jimmy Wales wrote:
How about something like /Peace. You post on that page with ideas that you think would make both you and that person happier together.
This could get really Orwellian («We've had problems with this person before -- it's gotten so bad that we created a [[/Peace]] page.»). If we could count on people to start this only *after* people start arguing all over the place but well *before* people start pushing for a ban, so that the creation of [[/Peace]] indicates strictly the beginning of efforts at reconciliation, then it could avoid Orwellia, but otherwise ...!
I'm half-joking, but my point is just this: when we kick off a discussion of a problem with a page called /ban or /complaints or /problems, we cause people to go into defensive modes of behavior that can lead to ego-battles that prevent productive solutions.
OK, so you're half-joking. Given that it is (IMO) a bad idea to put these things in as subpages of a [[User talk:]] page, perhaps we should create [[Wikipedia:Peace negotiations]] (or such) as a place to hold discussions at attempts to reconcile various users that are upset at each other (for whatever reason). Specific individuals (or better, antagonistic pairs/sides) can be marked off with headers, or subpages if absolutely necessary. (But it's best if we can avoid putting usernames in the titles completely.)
-- Toby
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