Category talk:Banned Wikipedia users

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Banned Wikipedia users category.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

This category was nominated for deletion on 1 November 2010. The result of the discussion was Keep.

Why is this category here?

Why is this category here? Whatever happened to WP:DENY? — Rickyrab | Talk 04:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This category documents editors (and any of their sock puppets) who have been banned for a variety of reasons. Vandalism is not usually a banable offense by itself, many have been blocked for making legal threats or a persistent pattern of violating multiple policies.

WP:DENY is actually not a policy, it's an essay written as the advice of it's creators. {{essay}}

The rules that "matter" are guidelines and policies. To give an example of some differences; this is an example of a guideline. A guideline is a rule which usually must be followed but may sometimes be ignored under special circumstances. {{guideline}}

Policies are much stricter, and are to be ignored in only the most rare unusual cases. {{policy}}

Anynobody 05:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion criteria

So, I have some questions as to what should be included here:

User pages or user talk pages?
If a banned user has a WP:Long term abuse page, should that be in this category? If so, should the user page be removed?
Should sockpuppets of banned users be listed?
Should topic-banned users? As an example, the user names in Category:Banned Wikipedia editors involved in the Bogdanov Affair are only banned from a single article, not from all of Wikipedia.

I also have concerns about accuracy and completeness. It would help if people could go thru and make sure everyone here actually is banned, and get banned users added if missing.

Discussion on this is needed, Oiyarbepsy (talk) 21:07, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts:

User pages. Not user talk pages.
LTA pages should be in the category only if the abuser doesn't have a user page it could go on (because they're a dynamic IP or something).
Sockpuppets shouldn't be in this category, but maybe they could be in a subcategory of this category.
Site-banned editors only in this category, but for other categories specifically for the purpose, topic-banned editors are fine (like the one you mentioned).

Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:05, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

".etc" should not be appearing after an IP range to describe a user or activity or pattern

Per an old discussion regarding IP-blocking entire ranges used by up to 300,000 people, is it proper to use ".etc." in an IP range? This is just one of many unique and seemingly abusive aspects of the vendetta against a particular POV in 2003-4 that somehow got associated with an IP range and then with a person's name - which name does *not* appear on this page despite numerous allegations and speculations on mailing lists. There is no documented pattern of Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse from this IP range. Accordingly it seems wrong and bizarre to use a ".etc" or to continue to encourage administrator or editor abuses or harassment of those using this range. It also seems extremely dubious that one person was behind all the questionable edits from this range, and a bit paranoid to assert that they were also behind all of the sympathetic, copycat, restored and accounts with the word "troll" in their name, as some later did. So should this entry simply be deleted as a shameful early Wikipedia incident that has never been submitted to Wikipedia:ArbCom ? Or should it be reviewed by them? None of this would matter much except for seemingly libellous statements on the record especially by User:RK and User:mav that today's Foundation would not want to take responsibility for. At the very least, by no means should ".etc" be appearing in front an IP range to describe a particular user or POV or conspiracy. The controversy seems far better named after the last named user accused of this activity [User_talk:EntmootsOfTrolls/ban] - whatever that activity was, since it is reported in contradictory terms. For one thing User:mav says he is cooperating and trying to work with this user at one point, but earlier he claimed he was afraid for his life and filing police reports. Yeah right. This whole entry should probably be deleted with an apology to anyone who was libelled during it, including seemingly User:Anthere/Florence Devouard who was on the side of a new process at the time - one that she eventually got. We call it Wikipedia:ArbCom. Why not refer this case to them for a final ruling? And ask if "142.177.etc" is a proper way to describe an activity or pattern of use, or if that is just hopelessly systemically biased against a particular city on Earth? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.11.95.94 (talk) 20:43, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Based on your comments, I removed User:142.177.etc from this category. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:30, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Empty category template

@Oiyarbepsy: and diff, the empty category template reads: " This category may be empty occasionally or even most of the time." This is false here, and has been false for a long while. With a few hundred banned users, the odds of this category being empty are infinitesimally small. Wikipedia will probably shut down (several times) before this is ever emptied.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 16:02, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]