Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Removing banned users from projects
This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall or new Consensus track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record.
The result of the debate was Oppose proposal.
Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 22:11, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
The result of the debate was Oppose proposal.
Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 22:11, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Quick vote due to an edit dispute rather than getting into an edit war becoming disruptive.
User:Dropbearemma's name was removed from the participants list of WP:Pride by User:Supreme Emperor due to their receiving a permanent block. I noticed this and re-added it back, with User:Editoronthewiki subsequently adding it back, noting this as standard practice.
This is not noted or documented on the relevant Wookieepedia:Blocking policy or Wookieepedia:WookieeProjects pages. We also do not remove users who are inactive for over 12 months, place the vacation or user left templates. These two facts (lack of documentation and disparity between banned ans other not-currently-active users) indicates to me that the list of participants is comprehensive to those past and present and is organic as new users come and join these WPs. While I respect some WPs may want to remove names of individuals that have done harm to other individuals involved in the WP who were banned as a result of those actions resulting in a ban (such as Tope and Darth Culator), I feel Dropbearemma does not fit this criteria and this could be perceived as a form of erasure, akin to Damnatio memoriae.
I don't necessarily see a need to document this one way or another, to provide flexibility for those cases like Tope and Culator. But I feel like in this case, their name should not be removed given the high involvement that user had in the project, encouraging that project's directives of inclusivity and anti-discrimination, and their working towards education and rehabilitation of those who misspoke and used discriminatory terminology without understanding or knowing they were being hurtful and causing harm to users.
To summarise:
Vote support to keep User:Dropbearemma listed as a participant in WP:Pride out of respect of their involvement and contributions to that project (potentially under a "not currently active" subset at WP lead's discretion)
Vote oppose to have their name removed from the list of participants of WP:Pride
Support
ℳÅℕ☉❂Ⅎ he/him/his 22:01, 13 August 2023 (UTC) (Vote struck, reason: Per policy: User regains voting rights back 08/18/2023 -- NBDani 
(they/them)Yeager's Repairs 22:27, 13 August 2023 (UTC))
- Per Wookieepedia:Three-revert rule and Wookieepedia:Dispute resolution I am trying to resolve a dispute with multiple users in a public, neutral setting. While this may be within policy, this is incredibly unfair to users in mine, or similar, positions who are unable to make their case and resolve disputes via community discussion ℳÅℕ☉❂Ⅎ he/him/his 23:10, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
- I understand how that can be an unfair policy in this particular situation and I'm sorry about that. You're still able to start this CT in order to resolve this issue, as you have done, and you're able to argue your point to show others your side. I'm sorry the timing was unfortunately poor in this instance. Fortunately, this instance did remind me I need to move my recent Senate Hall forward. NBDani
(they/them)Yeager's Repairs 23:21, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
- I understand how that can be an unfair policy in this particular situation and I'm sorry about that. You're still able to start this CT in order to resolve this issue, as you have done, and you're able to argue your point to show others your side. I'm sorry the timing was unfortunately poor in this instance. Fortunately, this instance did remind me I need to move my recent Senate Hall forward. NBDani
- Per Wookieepedia:Three-revert rule and Wookieepedia:Dispute resolution I am trying to resolve a dispute with multiple users in a public, neutral setting. While this may be within policy, this is incredibly unfair to users in mine, or similar, positions who are unable to make their case and resolve disputes via community discussion ℳÅℕ☉❂Ⅎ he/him/his 23:10, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
- I fail to see how doxxing and harassment wouldn't fit the criteria you mention. 01miki10 Open comlink 22:10, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
- Without knowing what evidence supports that ban, I cannot make comment on the appropriateness of said ban. I don't believe Emma would reveal identifying information or call for harassment on any individual. In saying that, blocks have been issued inappropriately before (eg Tope's string of blocks before his own global), have been contested and overturned. ℳÅℕ☉❂Ⅎ he/him/his 22:43, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
- WP participants list is a lawless land. WP:Resistance used to say "All members will be expected to maintain the most basic level of activity as members of this wiki. Those who appear to be inactive will be removed from this list. If your name has been removed, you are welcome to re-add it if and when you return" until I removed it a few months ago. I imagine other WPs have that disclaimer still. I know Pride doesn't but my point is, this field isn't covered under policy. When Fan26 was blocked, he was removed from WP:TOR's leadership even though the policy doesn't list WP leadership as a thing to be removed upon blocking. I'm open to vote on something to put this into policy though if we want to correct this lawlessness. NBDani
(they/them)Yeager's Repairs 22:22, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
- I avoided specific policy updates because I feel like WPs are an important outlet of creativity and shouldn't be hamstrung by policies, hence the suggested option of an "Inactive participants" sublist. If users feel like this requires a set policy, that discussion should occur, but it can occur in concert and independently of this vote on this specific instance. ℳÅℕ☉❂Ⅎ he/him/his 22:43, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
- The action that resulted in Emma receiving a permanent block was very harmful to the individual who was targeted, so I fail to see in anyway how Emma wouldn't fit the criteria proposed. Regardless of any positive impact Emma may have had on the site beforehand Lewisr (talk) 22:31, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
- Without repeating anything from a prior response, harm has been done to targeted individuals by current editors who have not received blocks, so that argument is a bit back handed given the reasons for her voluntary leaving were the harm done to her and others. If Emma did dox someone by revealing identifying information, that is a separate matter. If someone said "Manoof is Australian", that is not doxxing nor harassment since I can't be ID'd from that. If someone revealed contact information not publicly available (ie anything beyond my discord) then that would be doxxing and Emma would never say "x's address/contact/gender/etc is abc". I can't comment further beyond what I know of her and without knowing what apparently everyone else knows (ironically everyone who shared whatever Emma said, if it was doxxing, has also doxxed whomever the "targeted individual" is). ℳÅℕ☉❂Ⅎ he/him/his 23:04, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
- Manoof, we are not going to share the evidence or details of the block beyond what has been shared already due to the fact that yes, it would also be doxxing. We are also not going to debate what is or isn't doxxing. Please do not try to wikilawyer this. The administration has said all we can say on the subject of Emma's block. Cade Calrayn 23:17, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not asking for the evidence, and without seeing the evidence I'm not sure how I'm wikilawyering. The example for doxxing was to try to be clear about what has happened and what is being claimed to have happened (since false claims by an admin have happened before, nothing personal I just don't believe Emma would knowingly do this. If what Emma shared is public knowledge and general enough that it isn't actually doxxing, per my example, then that matches the previous actions of what others have done without receiving a ban or block. If she did in fact dox someone with identifying information, then I would support the ban. Since I don't know the evidence and trust is still difficult for me (hence my taking this discussion to a public and neutral setting), the former seems more likely to me than the later, but it sounds like only the collective admin and select wook users who saw this evidence will know the distinction. My point was simply to raise this to those users so they may vote as they feel would be consistent and fair for all. ℳÅℕ☉❂Ⅎ he/him/his 00:06, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
- What was shared, and on a public site for anyone to see, was not publicly available beforehand. Some of what you claim you know that Emma wouldn't share is part of it. I think it's a bit unfair that you are just basically dismissing it all as a false claim, especially when you say you have no idea of the situation Lewisr (talk) 00:21, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not asking for the evidence, and without seeing the evidence I'm not sure how I'm wikilawyering. The example for doxxing was to try to be clear about what has happened and what is being claimed to have happened (since false claims by an admin have happened before, nothing personal I just don't believe Emma would knowingly do this. If what Emma shared is public knowledge and general enough that it isn't actually doxxing, per my example, then that matches the previous actions of what others have done without receiving a ban or block. If she did in fact dox someone with identifying information, then I would support the ban. Since I don't know the evidence and trust is still difficult for me (hence my taking this discussion to a public and neutral setting), the former seems more likely to me than the later, but it sounds like only the collective admin and select wook users who saw this evidence will know the distinction. My point was simply to raise this to those users so they may vote as they feel would be consistent and fair for all. ℳÅℕ☉❂Ⅎ he/him/his 00:06, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
- Manoof, we are not going to share the evidence or details of the block beyond what has been shared already due to the fact that yes, it would also be doxxing. We are also not going to debate what is or isn't doxxing. Please do not try to wikilawyer this. The administration has said all we can say on the subject of Emma's block. Cade
- Without repeating anything from a prior response, harm has been done to targeted individuals by current editors who have not received blocks, so that argument is a bit back handed given the reasons for her voluntary leaving were the harm done to her and others. If Emma did dox someone by revealing identifying information, that is a separate matter. If someone said "Manoof is Australian", that is not doxxing nor harassment since I can't be ID'd from that. If someone revealed contact information not publicly available (ie anything beyond my discord) then that would be doxxing and Emma would never say "x's address/contact/gender/etc is abc". I can't comment further beyond what I know of her and without knowing what apparently everyone else knows (ironically everyone who shared whatever Emma said, if it was doxxing, has also doxxed whomever the "targeted individual" is). ℳÅℕ☉❂Ⅎ he/him/his 23:04, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
- Per above, doxing is absolutely unacceptable, and the removal of participants is not regulated. As off right now, it’s left to the responsibility and discretion of the project leader. LucaRoR (Talk) 22:39, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
- Emma’s contributions have not been erased. Their articles and other comments still stand; Emma has simply been removed from the list of participants because their permanent block means they are no longer an active member. Not to mention the fact they have unequivocally and repeatedly stated their unwillingness to ever return to the site, and have actively gone out of their way to discourage other users from joining. The leader of a WP is within their rights to set the rules for a project’s page as they see fit. Cade Calrayn 22:52, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
- Dani and Lew covered what I wanted to say already but in short-myself included, blocked and perma'd users have long been removed from wookieeprojects they are members of. Emma is not any more deserving of special privileges relating to remaining on a Wookiee Project's membership than I was when I was blocked or anyone who's been perma'd. If Emma's block were to get overturned, then there's nothing preventing her from re-adding herself to the membership list. Really, this feels like a minor thing that isn't worth a full community debate over. Fan26 (Talk) 23:44, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
- And perhaps that was wrong as well? I'd also appreciate if you don't minimise what others feel is or isn't important, as mentioned previously, I raised this here because I feel this is a public, neutral location to have such a discussion, perhaps if this sort of thing occurred more frequently there would be much less issues and drama, for lack of a better word? CT shouldn't be reserved for massive site and policy changes, and if someone feels strongly about something (such as an infobox image) then we shouldn't disparage the use of CT to resolve such conflicts ℳÅℕ☉❂Ⅎ he/him/his 23:58, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
- It was not wrong. I 100 percent deserved my block for starters, and not allowing me to continue to represent the community as leader of a wookieproject while blocked is the right move. The same goes for other uses who were blocked and removed from project leadership or membership. I call this a minor thing because it's trying to get around precedents over how we handle these situations for one person, especially one who has bluntly said they're not intending to return. That's all I have to say. Fan26 (Talk) 00:06, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
- And perhaps that was wrong as well? I'd also appreciate if you don't minimise what others feel is or isn't important, as mentioned previously, I raised this here because I feel this is a public, neutral location to have such a discussion, perhaps if this sort of thing occurred more frequently there would be much less issues and drama, for lack of a better word? CT shouldn't be reserved for massive site and policy changes, and if someone feels strongly about something (such as an infobox image) then we shouldn't disparage the use of CT to resolve such conflicts ℳÅℕ☉❂Ⅎ he/him/his 23:58, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
- Per the points discussed above. Rsand 30 (talk) 00:05, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
- Per the above. I don't think we should be going out of our way to give special treatment to Emma above this precedent considering how she got herself blocked. Braha'tok enthusiast Hello there 00:16, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
- Per above. Doxxing is not okay, and precedent is that banned users do get removed from projects, as one cannot participate when banned from the site. Also, having a banned user listed on a project can be misleading to new users, who may unintentionally message a banned user with a question. Her contributions do still remain on the site. Supreme Emperor Holocomm 03:35, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
- Per above. Regardless of how highly I regard the individual Emma specifically chose to doxx, there is no reason that Emma should be readded to any projects she was previously a part of, simply for the sake of to make her seen. Was I kept on projects when I was blocked? Absolutely not and I 100% support both that action and my block; they were completely justified. If I was kept visible on my projects, it'd undermine the block. Putting Emma back on any of the projects she was part of would only contradict a deserved ban. Erebus Chronus (Talk) 03:45, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
- I believe that by definition, someone who has been permanently blocked is not going to be part of a project on a site that person was banned from. I do not feel special treatment, honor, or privilege is appropriate for someone who commits doxxing. SaintSirNicholas (talk) 10:17, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
Discuss
- Further, blocks of any length can be disputed and overturned, and there is no time limit to when this occurs. So nothing to stop a future administration deciding any block was unfair, issued in error or has served its purpose (as has been discussed by other admin past and present on existing perma-blocks and even global blocks on other users) ℳÅℕ☉❂Ⅎ he/him/his 22:19, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
- Noting for the record that two permanently banned users were removed from WP:Chiss, so this removal of Emma's name from WP:Pride was repeating a similar action that had taken place before Lewisr (talk) 22:31, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
- I wasn't aware of those, but this vote is specific to this instance and WP. If users want to dispute having those names listed somewhere on that WP (such as the aforementioned inactive participants list), that that is up to those users. I don't know the details or circumstances around those bannings, but similar principles would apply ℳÅℕ☉❂Ⅎ he/him/his 22:37, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
- These should be kept as "inactive participants" since they contributed the vast majority of the articles to the project --Goodmind (talk) 18:44, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
- I find the points raised here fascinating given previous actions, and want to make clear that it was neither my intent nor myself who brought up some of the points discussed (such as the nature of the block). As always, I will defer to the majority, but wanted to make clear that my intention was simply to show respect and honour to Emma by noting her as a non-active participant, before this was taken out of context and made into something it wasn't. As always, precedent shouldn't prevent change, and if other users had raised this for other users, I would like to think that I would assess the discussion on the merits of discussion rather than past actions. Thank you ℳÅℕ☉❂Ⅎ he/him/his 02:57, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
- I'm staunchly against the treatment Emma received back in May,
but that doesn't excuse doxxing or harassment in any shape or form. That being said, I've been solely editing and contributing to the forums after my temporarily leave of absence from the site, and I've had little to no awareness of any major situations that have occurred since May until seeing this SH. As I understand admins will not reveal information out of respect and courtesy for ANY individuals involved (including Emma), I'm not going to press further on the validity of her permanent block, thoughmy concerns—both past and present—do mean I will be abstaining from a vote. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 18:21, 15 August 2023 (UTC)- As an aside, I don't see a reason to list any past member of a WP alongside current members for any reason, as they aren't current members. That being said, I would not be opposed a separate list on Wookieeprojects that indicate who was a member in the past, insofar as it's distinct from the list of current members. It's also important that members, former or not, are still listed as the founder of a Wookieeproject when applicable. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 18:24, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
- Striking part of my original statement. Still agree that doxxing is intolerable. Again, I do not expect the administration to divulge information as it's generally policy to keep the privacy of the involved parties in mind. However, I've seen statements elsewhere implying that no actual doxxing was performed, so while I am still not leaning in either direction on this matter, I am finding myself once again concerned with how this may have been carried out. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 22:18, 15 August 2023 (UTC)