- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the discussion was Nomination withdrawn, see below. Hut 8.5 18:22, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:List of banned users
Unnecessary list. If it is useful for admins then perhaps this list could be only for admins to see. Publicly putting a scarlet letter on people being bad is not the way to go. It just invites nosy people to see why people are banned and it is really none of anyone's business. The most interesting man in the world ( talk) 17:27, 18 July 2013 (UTC)Adding, since policy must be included, this could be considered a form of WP:Harassment by letting said nosy people gawk at all those bad people with their scarlet letters from past wikicrimes that they might not even remember. All this can do is reopen old wounds. The most interesting man in the world ( talk) 18:01, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
- Procedural keep - no policy-based reason for deletion given. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:31, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
- Even now, after changing the rationale a little, there is still no policy-based reason for deleting it. Considering that there are some that could be made, there's little reason to continue with this WP:IDONTLIKEIT nomination. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:11, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
- Keep One or two of us are working on the actual problems with the list to make it more accessible and to remove older records to subpages or collapsed sections. This nomination's contention that this is "none of anyone's business" is ridiculous. Even if we didn't have the list, the banning discussions and the talk pages of the banned users are still available for anyone to see. Also, sorry to disappoint you but there is no secret namespace that only admins can see, so that option is off the table. And lastly, the mfd tag does not properly link to this discussion, please fix it. Beeblebrox ( talk) 17:41, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
- The link works now.
The most interesting man in the world (
talk)
17:56, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks.
Beeblebrox (
talk)
17:58, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
- It was also not transcluded, now I did it.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 18:00, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks.
Beeblebrox (
talk)
17:58, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
- The link works now.
The most interesting man in the world (
talk)
17:56, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
- Comment If 10 users vote keep before the first delete, I'll withdraw the nomination. The most interesting man in the world ( talk) 18:16, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
- Keep none of the nominator's concerns are valid. This page does serve a useful purpose beyond historical archiving, in that bans are enforced by removing any edits made by the banned editor. To do this it is helpful to have a page which tells you whether someone is banned and which lays out concerns which lead to the ban. If this page did not exist then the banning process would be much less transparent. As for the "none of anyone's business" claim, it certainly is our business to decide who is and is not allowed to edit our encyclopedia, and I don't see how this could possibly constitute harassment. Furthermore this information is not only of interest to admins, and even if it was there is no way to keep the page while making it invisible to non-admins. Hut 8.5 18:46, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
- Keep per Hut 8.5. Well said. -- BDD ( talk) 22:46, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. This is a frivolous nomination. I'm #5.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 23:49, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
- Keep it aids in quickly implementing the policy regarding banned users, and making it admin access only would mostly defeat the point.-- Gilderien Chat| List of good deeds 16:19, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- Keep, per Gilderien; my thoughts exactly. -- Yellow1996 ( talk) 17:33, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Withdraw I know I said 10 but I don't see the need to keep this going. I still disagree with this "naming and shaming" list here but if consensus is against me, then consensus is against me. The most interesting man in the world ( talk) 17:45, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the discussion was Nomination withdrawn, see below. Hut 8.5 18:22, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:List of banned users
Unnecessary list. If it is useful for admins then perhaps this list could be only for admins to see. Publicly putting a scarlet letter on people being bad is not the way to go. It just invites nosy people to see why people are banned and it is really none of anyone's business. The most interesting man in the world ( talk) 17:27, 18 July 2013 (UTC)Adding, since policy must be included, this could be considered a form of WP:Harassment by letting said nosy people gawk at all those bad people with their scarlet letters from past wikicrimes that they might not even remember. All this can do is reopen old wounds. The most interesting man in the world ( talk) 18:01, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
- Procedural keep - no policy-based reason for deletion given. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:31, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
- Even now, after changing the rationale a little, there is still no policy-based reason for deleting it. Considering that there are some that could be made, there's little reason to continue with this WP:IDONTLIKEIT nomination. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:11, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
- Keep One or two of us are working on the actual problems with the list to make it more accessible and to remove older records to subpages or collapsed sections. This nomination's contention that this is "none of anyone's business" is ridiculous. Even if we didn't have the list, the banning discussions and the talk pages of the banned users are still available for anyone to see. Also, sorry to disappoint you but there is no secret namespace that only admins can see, so that option is off the table. And lastly, the mfd tag does not properly link to this discussion, please fix it. Beeblebrox ( talk) 17:41, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
- The link works now.
The most interesting man in the world (
talk)
17:56, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks.
Beeblebrox (
talk)
17:58, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
- It was also not transcluded, now I did it.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 18:00, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks.
Beeblebrox (
talk)
17:58, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
- The link works now.
The most interesting man in the world (
talk)
17:56, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
- Comment If 10 users vote keep before the first delete, I'll withdraw the nomination. The most interesting man in the world ( talk) 18:16, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
- Keep none of the nominator's concerns are valid. This page does serve a useful purpose beyond historical archiving, in that bans are enforced by removing any edits made by the banned editor. To do this it is helpful to have a page which tells you whether someone is banned and which lays out concerns which lead to the ban. If this page did not exist then the banning process would be much less transparent. As for the "none of anyone's business" claim, it certainly is our business to decide who is and is not allowed to edit our encyclopedia, and I don't see how this could possibly constitute harassment. Furthermore this information is not only of interest to admins, and even if it was there is no way to keep the page while making it invisible to non-admins. Hut 8.5 18:46, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
- Keep per Hut 8.5. Well said. -- BDD ( talk) 22:46, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. This is a frivolous nomination. I'm #5.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 23:49, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
- Keep it aids in quickly implementing the policy regarding banned users, and making it admin access only would mostly defeat the point.-- Gilderien Chat| List of good deeds 16:19, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- Keep, per Gilderien; my thoughts exactly. -- Yellow1996 ( talk) 17:33, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Withdraw I know I said 10 but I don't see the need to keep this going. I still disagree with this "naming and shaming" list here but if consensus is against me, then consensus is against me. The most interesting man in the world ( talk) 17:45, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.