409:. And it did. If you want to change it back, fine, but this is not the way to do so. If you look at those old discussions, you'll see me arguing to keep in one of them, but in the end the community decided it didn't want it. In retrospect I do now agree, but even if I didn't consensus is the primary means of decision making here and the current consensus is that we shouldn't have this.
485:. So, the argument that it's "in my userspace" is not valid. Secondly, the argument that "it should be discussed" is not valid either. The whole point of CSD is that they're uncontentious "quick fail" criteria for pages, and do not require "discussion". If the CSD applies, which it does in this case, then there is nothing more to discuss.
609:, but rather somewhere that more people can see it. I really was disappointed when the list was deleted the first time, as now it's impossible to tell why someone was banned. It's always possible that someone could make the ban reasons more neutral (perhaps simply a link to the discussion that resulted in their ban, and nothing more).
653:, which although addressing a slightly different scope, and involving far fewer people (including me), I believe should be considered decisive. If it was the wrong decision, that the community generally should not be maintaining this list, then I think it needs a serious discussion, not a unilateral recreation, from unknown sources.
481:- This seems to be a straightforwardly-valid G4 speedy deletion. The community legitimately decided to delete the log of banned users as harmful, so continuing to maintain it in one's userspace would seem to directly betray the community's intent, and is undoubtedly an improper use of the userspace anyway per
367:
You're not missing anything. It's kind of crazy that a single MFD can result in a deletion of an article and past decisions can be ignored. It's like retrying someone in a court of law until you get the result you want. I really disagree that there ever was consensus for it in the first place. But of
180:
I contested the speedy deletion, and the page was restored. Another admin has speedily deleted it without addressing the reasons for contesting its deletion and has thus far not responded to my attempts to communicate with them. If it is the consensus of the community that this page, which is in user
562:
It has been 4.5 years since the MfD. That's long enough it seems reasonable to discuss again, especially considering it was kept 5 times before that deletion in 2014 and the discussion was close (close enough NC was the most obvious close). Does G4 apply? Maybe, I can't see either article. But
248:
The lead is identical except for paragraph breaks. The idea that you can claim a list is nonidentical in substance because, while you don't include any of the entries that were on the deleted version, you link to an offsite archive of the deleted version, is patently absurd. And while G4 exempts
338:
The intent here is obviously to maintain, in some form, a list of banned users. The community said very clearly it did not want that in a series of MFDs. Normally userfying stuff that was in project space is fine, but this case is an obvious exception as we have a pre-existing consensus that this
650:
464:
262:
539:
I can't endorse a speedy deletion enforcing a MfD that old. Also, I can't agree with the fallacy that deleting this stuff off the encyclopaedia is in any way helpful. The practical effect of deletions like this is to drive discussion about
Knowledge (XXG)'s governance and procedures
423:
I don't really think the consensus did change, as the margins were 33 keep 35 delete. However, that's all in the past, anyway, and consensus could of course change again. I'm not sure where to post if I want to change it back, other than the village pump, where I already posted it.
292:
clean starts for blocked or banned users), that decision should apply to all lists of Banned Users. Other's maintaining live lists of banned users are too much of a privacy problem, and no random user should have good reason to maintain this negative list (cf
231:
Roy, where G4 discusses userspace, it says it excludes things in userspace "...for explicit improvement". I can't see this article, but my sense is this isn't an article being improved, but something intended to live in user space. Would you agree with that?
215:, and that it is not a user space copy. This fails both of those. I can't see any reason why somebody wants to maintain this list, but I also can't see any reason to object to it. And, even if somebody does have a good reason to object to it, take it to
646:
642:
460:
163:
181:
space, should not exist, then that's okay, but I would like for consensus to actually be established before a deletion occurs. At the very least, it shouldn't have been speedily deleted without a consensus being built.
151:
172:
249:
material moved to userspace for explicit improvement, listing "newer bans" is not an improvement in the context of the discussion at MFD. This isn't even a close call. Endorse. —
719:- -it's the only way to see the current consensus. Then we can discuss whether or not it should be kept or deleted, not the previous processes and their implications.
525:
The close was a correct interpretation of the MfD and a correct reading of community norms. Maintaining lists of bad people provides no benefit for the encyclopedia.
48:
34:
266:
43:
353:
I think I may be missing something. I see 6 MfDs. I believe all but the last resulted in "keep". Was there some other discussion I missed? Thanks!
589:
I see what you mean. I'd not looked closely before, just at the bold !votes and the closes. But it *was* kept and #5 was a pretty darn strong keep.
580:
Have you looked at the previous discussion pages? It requires more assumption of good faith than is healthy to call them six tries to delete. —
39:
605:
Honestly I think reversing the MfD should be discussed again, although I have a feeling that the discussion should not be done here in
657:
316:
553:
121:
78:
about whether the speedy deletion was appropriate. in such cases, we generally refer the page to XfD, which is what I am doing.
21:
117:
70:
741:
606:
101:
17:
339:
material should not be hosted on
Knowledge (XXG) at all, and that discussion was clearly cited in the deletion log.
513:
372:
should be recreated in the project namespace should be discussed somewhere where more eyes can see it, though.
286:
508:- Banned users are people too, even if their editing puts them at odds with the creation of an encyclopedia.
465:
Knowledge (XXG):Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of banned users/Banned by the
Arbitration Committee
263:
Knowledge (XXG):Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of banned users/Banned by the
Arbitration Committee
368:
course, if consensus is against me, I'll have no choice but to abide by it. I still think whether or not
696:
617:
432:
380:
189:
730:
705:
683:
669:
626:
598:
584:
575:
557:
534:
517:
500:
473:
441:
418:
389:
362:
348:
328:
306:
253:
241:
226:
198:
90:
549:
414:
344:
482:
294:
665:
509:
324:
302:
563:
after 6 tries to delete over the years, one successful one shouldn't end the discussion forever.
530:
223:
674:
It seems like a reasonable thing to send back to MfD after 4.5 years, that's all I'm saying.
369:
689:
610:
469:
425:
373:
182:
406:
312:
216:
679:
594:
571:
541:
493:
410:
358:
340:
237:
208:
661:
461:
Knowledge (XXG):Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of banned users (6th nomination)
320:
298:
81:
726:
526:
273:
220:
581:
250:
675:
590:
567:
486:
354:
233:
721:
267:
Knowledge (XXG):List of banned users/Banned by the
Arbitration Committee
660:
seem to also be saying that such lists are not a good idea. --
649:
is startling. However, the last formal discussion was
285:
As ArbCom has purview over all banned users (note that
158:
144:
136:
128:
658:
Wikipedia_talk:Long-term_abuse#Lists_of_Banned_Users
213:substantially identical to the deleted version
8:
100:The following is an archived debate of the
63:
118:User:Rockstone35/list of banned users
71:User:Rockstone35/list of banned users
7:
317:Knowledge (XXG):Long-term abuse/List
744:of the page listed in the heading.
265:, where the consensus was to place
28:
740:The above is an archive of the
272:"of any Arbitrator or Clerk. —
18:Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review
278:03:36, 23 October 2014 (UTC)".
1:
269:under the sole discretion of
656:A small number of people at
287:Knowledge (XXG):Clean start
767:
706:06:08, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
684:03:31, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
670:23:09, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
627:05:20, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
599:04:07, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
585:02:42, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
576:02:34, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
558:14:43, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
535:06:09, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
518:03:45, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
501:02:10, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
474:01:38, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
442:00:36, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
419:00:11, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
390:20:04, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
363:02:37, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
349:01:18, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
329:01:02, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
307:00:49, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
254:00:37, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
242:02:28, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
227:23:35, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
211:requires that the page be
199:20:44, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
731:16:43, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
459:per Cryptic, Beeblebrox,
91:14:54, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
747:Please do not modify it.
107:Please do not modify it.
40:Deletion review archives
651:this (23 October 2014)
280:
688:I second this notion
647:MfD6 (2 October 2014)
641:The contrast between
270:
643:MfD5 (20 July 2013)
104:of the page above.
607:WP:Deletion Review
754:
753:
701:
622:
556:
437:
385:
315:matter? compare
194:
89:
758:
749:
703:
699:
694:
624:
620:
615:
548:
546:
498:
491:
472:
457:Endorse deletion
439:
435:
430:
387:
383:
378:
276:
259:Endorse deletion
196:
192:
187:
175:
170:
161:
147:
139:
131:
109:
88:
86:
79:
64:
53:
33:
766:
765:
761:
760:
759:
757:
756:
755:
745:
742:deletion review
697:
690:
618:
611:
565:overturn speedy
542:
494:
487:
468:
433:
426:
381:
374:
274:
190:
183:
171:
169:
166:
157:
156:
150:
143:
142:
135:
134:
127:
126:
105:
102:deletion review
82:
80:
62:
55:
54:
51:
46:
37:
31:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
764:
762:
752:
751:
736:
735:
734:
733:
713:
712:
711:
710:
709:
708:
654:
638:
637:
631:
630:
629:
603:
602:
601:
560:
537:
520:
510:Reaper Eternal
503:
476:
453:
452:
451:
450:
449:
448:
447:
446:
445:
444:
397:
396:
395:
394:
393:
392:
332:
331:
309:
282:
281:
256:
246:
245:
244:
178:
177:
167:
154:
148:
140:
132:
124:
112:
111:
96:
95:
94:
93:
61:
56:
47:
38:
30:
29:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
763:
750:
748:
743:
738:
737:
732:
728:
724:
723:
718:
715:
714:
707:
704:
702:
695:
693:
687:
686:
685:
681:
677:
673:
672:
671:
667:
663:
659:
655:
652:
648:
644:
640:
639:
635:
632:
628:
625:
623:
616:
614:
608:
604:
600:
596:
592:
588:
587:
586:
583:
579:
578:
577:
573:
569:
566:
561:
559:
555:
551:
547:
545:
538:
536:
532:
528:
524:
521:
519:
515:
511:
507:
504:
502:
499:
497:
492:
490:
484:
480:
477:
475:
471:
466:
462:
458:
455:
454:
443:
440:
438:
431:
429:
422:
421:
420:
416:
412:
408:
405:
404:
403:
402:
401:
400:
399:
398:
391:
388:
386:
379:
377:
371:
366:
365:
364:
360:
356:
352:
351:
350:
346:
342:
337:
334:
333:
330:
326:
322:
318:
314:
310:
308:
304:
300:
296:
291:
288:
284:
283:
279:
277:
268:
264:
260:
257:
255:
252:
247:
243:
239:
235:
230:
229:
228:
225:
222:
218:
214:
210:
206:
203:
202:
201:
200:
197:
195:
188:
186:
174:
165:
160:
153:
146:
138:
130:
123:
119:
116:
115:
114:
113:
110:
108:
103:
98:
97:
92:
87:
85:
77:
73:
72:
68:
67:
66:
65:
60:
59:19 March 2019
57:
50:
49:2019 March 20
45:
41:
36:
35:2019 March 18
23:
19:
746:
739:
720:
716:
698:
691:
633:
619:
612:
564:
543:
522:
505:
495:
488:
478:
456:
434:
427:
382:
375:
335:
289:
271:
258:
212:
205:Overturn CSD
204:
191:
184:
179:
106:
99:
83:
76:no consensus
75:
69:
58:
700:talk to me!
621:talk to me!
436:talk to me!
384:talk to me!
311:Or is it a
193:talk to me!
74:– There is
544:S Marshall
540:off-wiki.—
483:WP:POLEMIC
411:Beeblebrox
341:Beeblebrox
295:WP:POLEMIC
84:Sandstein
44:2019 March
692:Rockstone
662:SmokeyJoe
613:Rockstone
428:Rockstone
376:Rockstone
321:SmokeyJoe
299:SmokeyJoe
185:Rockstone
527:Johnuniq
290:excludes
275:xaosflux
221:RoySmith
20: |
634:comment
582:Cryptic
523:Endorse
506:Endorse
489:~Swarm~
479:Endorse
467:etc. --
370:WP:LOBU
336:Endorse
251:Cryptic
173:restore
137:history
717:Relist
496:{talk}
470:Begoon
407:WP:CCC
313:WP:LTA
297:). --
224:(talk)
219:. --
217:WP:MfD
727:talk
676:Hobit
591:Hobit
568:Hobit
355:Hobit
319:. --
234:Hobit
209:WP:G4
159:watch
152:links
52:: -->
16:<
680:talk
666:talk
645:and
595:talk
572:talk
531:talk
514:talk
415:talk
359:talk
345:talk
325:talk
303:talk
261:per
238:talk
145:logs
129:edit
122:talk
32:<
722:DGG
207:.
164:XfD
162:) (
22:Log
729:)
682:)
668:)
597:)
574:)
533:)
516:)
463:,
417:)
361:)
347:)
327:)
305:)
240:)
42::
725:(
678:(
664:(
636:.
593:(
570:(
554:C
552:/
550:T
529:(
512:(
413:(
357:(
343:(
323:(
301:(
236:(
176:)
168:|
155:|
149:|
141:|
133:|
125:|
120:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.