Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of banned users (4th nomination)

 __NOINDEX__
 * 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  Speedy keep This is silly someone should do a checkuser on this editor, clearly a bad faith nomination (former-admin close) Secret account 23:58, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:List of banned users
This banned list used to be a selected list of banned users who really weren’t that troublesome. That was fine but today it has changed into logging usual sanctions onto this list. I understand that it is hard for editors to remember the ban of every user so the list helps to remind them to revert their edits. But enforcing a ban is not an obligation and considering the few hundred of banned users on this list, it's just impossible to remember their bans especially those who become inactive for a period of time. The only people who are active on this page are those who want recognition. Deleting this page certainly will solve that problem. Wikipedia needs to learn when to deny recognition and when to recognize users who are truly troubled. There is also confusion about who should be on this banned list. Some users think it’s okay to add de facto banned users to this list when in reality they never received a formal ban. This is blatant abuse of the banning policy. The banning policy makes a clear distinction between indefinitely blocked users and banned users. If people are getting confused on who should be added to this banned list, then it ought to be deleted. There are much important things to do on Wikipedia than arguing who gets to be on this banned list.

Note The first nomination did not achieve a consensus for obvious reasons. I believe that this outcome would favor for deletion.

Ralph MacPherson (talk) 19:43, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep - I question the intentions of the nominator. MtD (talk) 20:24, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment My intentions are in good faith. Ralph MacPherson (talk) 20:25, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep-I have to admit to a good deal of suspicion about this particular page being nominated for deletion by a brand new user. Even if this IS a good faith nomination, though, the page should be kept. The complaint that the page provides recognition to vandals is understandable, but the value it provides outweighs that. A true ban is a serious matter which leads to a number of restrictions and prohibitions on those who receive it. It only makes sense to have some kind of record if those restrictions and prohibitions are to be enforced. If users which are not banned are added to the list, they should be removed, but that kind of activity doesn't mean we should delete the page anymore than persistent vandalism means we should delete an article. --Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 22:35, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per Fyre2387. Deleting this page because unbanned users are being added to it is like deleting a legitamite article because it is being constantly vandalized. ~  Nerdy Science  Dude  22:43, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep If people are getting confused as to what to put on the list, it needs better instructions, not deleting. Deeply suspicious of nominator - this was his fourth edit and he's quoting policies right left and centre.  He's not User:Gavin.collins is he?Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:47, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. This page is the sole important point of reference for determining whether a user is banned, and why.  We have resolved elsehwhere that it is not to be done by categories, or by information on user or user_talk pages.  Log information is not suitable for regarding subtleties, conditions etc, and especially not when things change.  "Ban"s are often fluid, changing or even poorly defined things, and tis page serves a need well.  If there is misuse of the page, this misuse should be treated seriously, as per any disruptive behaviour.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:17, 4 November 2010 (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.