Wikipedia talk:Bans and blocks

message: This text was from Talk:Christian philosophy and documents actions resulting from a policy that talks about "bans" and advises "reverts" without regard to the merit of the material in question:
whats wrong with this article? Susan Mason
Nothing's wrong with the article text, as such. The problem is that the author has been banned by the management of the Wikipedia. See  and earlier discussions on the mailing list for reasons why. 
The user in question is welcome to request the removal of the ban at any time.
However, at the moment, they are knowingly ignoring the ban, and trying to circumvent it through contributions via anonymous IP addresses.  
Banning them implies that we need to remove their contributions via anonymous IPs, regardless of intrinsic merit. Why? Because if their contributions are allowed to stay, it means the ban cannot be enforced against them, or anyone else.  And if users cannot be banned, there is no disincentive against abusive behavior.  
The aim of the removals is not the removal of their point of view, it is the enforcement of the ban.
The Anome 08:53 Mar 6, 2003 (UTC)
it seems like such a waste... Susan Mason
It is.  They are welcome to E-mail Jimmy Wales at any time, to request the removal of the ban.  Or they can simply copy the database files, and set up their own Wikipedia fork on their own server.  It's not content or politics that's the issue, it's behavior.  The Anome 09:00 Mar 6, 2003 (UTC)
By the way, thanks for re-starting the article with your own contribution. The Anome
I just wanted future generations to remember me as the one who saved christian philosophy. Susan Mason
----
There may also be a chilling effect, as until the article was restored at Christian philosophy, literally no one had a hand in improving it.  It waited until someone noticed that Hindu philosophy had been created, then went looking, and noticed this, and found the best version still in the log. user:142.177.etc
Why be coy? Your user contribution list shows that the "someone" is you. This isn't sarcasm; I'm genuinely curious. -- Cyan 21:14, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Case study: Christian philosophy 

message: The policy says "All edits by a hard banned user... may be reverted by any user... Newly created articles: sysops can simply delete the page"
Please can someone clarify whether this relates only to articles the user has edited or created since their banning, or may it also include those made before they were banned. For example, if someone has deleted something which a banned user created months before they were banned, should such an article be undeleted/ listed on VfU etc? Angela 23:56, Sep 30, 2003 (UTC)
:As far as I'm concerned, it definitely only applies to articles created since the ban (applying it even to those is a bit controversial), and I think that's where the balance of opinion lies. I've added a couple of words in an attempt to clarify this. If we deleted all the articles that, for example, DW had made before he was banned, we'd be deleting a lot of decent articles. If somebody deleted an article created by a banned user before they were banned, and there was no reason to delete the page other than that its creator had been banned, then I personally would undelete the article and ask the deleter not to do it again (though what others would want to do, I don't know). --Camembert
:: If we deleted/reverted all the articles that DW had made after he was banned, we'd still be deleting a lot of decent articles. I don't know who still believes that this is a good idea, to be honest - perhaps we should take a vote at some point. Martin 08:18, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: A look through the deletion logs would give a fairly good indication of who thinks it is a good idea. Angela 08:31, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: In principle, I'm against automatically deleting banned user's stuff, whenever it was created, but to be fair, DW isn't the best example. The stuff he made post-ban was created with him behaving perfectly well (rather than throwing abuse at everyone who disagreed with him, which is why he was banned), and most people didn't know it was him editing (at least at first). I think it's pretty clear that in that sort of case, to go back and delete all his post-ban stuff once it becomes clear it was DW all along doesn't bring any benefit. The murkier area is when somebody is banned, but just continues editing and acting as they always did, along the same lines that got them banned in the first place. I'm still against autodeletion in those cases, but I can think of some pretty good arguments in favour of it, and I think a majority would be in favour. --Camembert 14:16, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Reverting and deleting

message: Moved from WP:VP
Since I suggested banning Lir yesterday, I have noticed that I am
way behind the times in this regard, and that the idea has been going around and around for ages, even though Lir has been banned before and so arguably it shouldn't take much misbehavior for Lir to earn a ban again. This makes me wonder: Why is it so hard to ban people from Wikipedia? What are the criteria? 
To me there's an obvious rule of thumb that should apply: If a user has lots of complaints against him or her about behavior that is documented and verifiable in the histories; and if no one with a good reputation speaks in favor of keeping that user around--citing some verifiable good behavior like "so-and-so made a nice contribution to article X while I was there on such and such a day" or "so-and-so discussed an issue reasonably over at article Y while I was there then"--then the person should be banned. 
Could such a rule work? Is that in fact what we do? I ask just because it doesn't seem like that's what's being done. Instead I get the impression many people regard banning as almost too harsh to contemplate, as if nothing short of verified 24/7 beligerence and vandalism with no redeeming or ambiguous behavior deserves a ban. But the way I react to users is that after I experience a certain amount or a certain consistency of unreasonableness and/or incivility from them, I just don't trust them anymore. But of course there's no avoiding such users on Wikipedia, if they take an interest in the same articles as you. 
At the very outset of discussions Lir has had with other users on Talk pages, I have noticed them address or respond to Lir with skepticism and or sarcasm. I imagine that's because they've interacted with Lir before and they no longer assume good faith. Why on Earth should we put up with users of whom nobody with experience assumes good faith? (Not that I'm positive that Lir in particular falls in this category). Does Wikipedia have any obligation or responsibility to people like that? If people think so, I can't imagine why. 168... 02:31, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: As of September 2003, it is now possible for sysops to block usernames. It is important to note that sysops are not authorised to decide whether a particular case of Wikiquette violation warrants banning by username. The ability to ban by username has been made available for the purposes of enforcing a ban already approved by Jimbo, and to protect Wikipedia from "simple vandalism". It may be used to block accounts of obvious reincarnations of hard-banned users (see below). (from Wikipedia:Bans) Anthony DiPierro 04:01, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Village pump discussion

message: I wonder what kinda history lieth behind the ban. Who was the first user to be banned on Wikipedia, and what did he do? Was there ever anything tried as an "ultimate penalty" before banning? How long did Wikipedia last before it realized a ban was needed? Any idea? Rickyrab 03:01, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: History of the ban

message: Refactored version: 
Sam Spade asked whether admins can ban people for insulting them. 
Anthere pointed out the Wikipedia:remove personal attacks guideline and recommended that someone making insults should apologise for that. She also proposed exploring the idea of banning for more than 3 insults.
:What an idiot! No one can be banned for insults, you stupid head!! --Ed Poor 17:15, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: That's two . . . * grin * -- NetEsq 18:35, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: I know, and I gave Ed Poor a 4-hour block to teach him a lesson. --Uncle Ed 16:21, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bans for insults

message: I'd like to know why user:Adam Bishop banned user:Gdansk. --Uncle Ed 13:33, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Ban of user:Gdansk

message: I'm PR's advocate in this case.  He was blocked for the duration of the RfArb for reasons that are now known to be inaccurate.  The block has been lifted for the duration of the RfArb so he can defend himself.  A motion has been passed to have his editing restrictions lifted completely.  There has been no opposition to the motion.  Could this please be looked at?  PR has had no substantial accusations made against him (since the CSN, but the reasoning has been debunked), yet he's been blocked for quite some time now. Mark Chovain 22:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He's been asked to drop the RfArb case in return for having his block dropped - but has not yet been given a reason for being blocked.  Why is it taking so long to lift a block that shouldn't be there in the first place? Mark Chovain 05:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can someone at least tell me where we can go to dispute the current block? Mark Chovain 06:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Block of PalestineRemembered