 | This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
First, because sometimes people think this is about all community ban discussions, let me clarify that the only type of ban discussion I actually oppose are the "he has been indef blocked and has socked X many times, and shows no sign of stopping so I think we should make it official" type. Ban discussions that might actually matter, that aren't a foregone conclusion, are different, and I've never opposed them.
My problems with this specific type of ban discussion are:
- It is a waste of time; it doesn't make anything easier, it doesn't protect anyone from anything. You may not think it is a significant waste of time, but it is definitely not useful, so any time spent on it is wasted.
- It contributes to a tribal mindset of "us against them", "no longer of the body", etc. I've used the phrase "two minute hate" frequently, probably to the point of annoyance of others, but I think it's a valid comparison. I think it makes us a worse community, it makes us worse people, to bond over a two minute hate. This is the most important reason for me, personally. It's embarrassing to be part of a community that gets such a sense of self-righteous satisfaction from having a ban discussion.
- If anything, it encourages them to sock MORE. Once you're indef blocked, the only options are to (a) come back into the fold, (b) keep vandalizing, or (c) go away. A banning discussion makes (a) impossible (although this isn't really a problem, since by this time everyone knows it isn't going to happen). It has no effect on (c), since they've already demonstrated they don't care about not being welcome; no one is going to say "oh, I see, I'm banned. OK, the community has spoken, I'll stop now". That leaves (b). It's exciting for a vandal to get attention. Being subject to a banning discussion isn't going to encourage them to stop, it will at best have no effect, and at worse will encourage more of it, to get yet more attention.
- Having a community ban discussion without allowing the editor to comment seems unfair, but allowing them to comment - and working out a way to let them comment - just causes more disruption.
- It makes us look dumb. Since there is no benefit to this type of discussion, continuing to have them makes us look dumb to outsiders. They will thus be less likely to stop being outsiders.
The solution to this kind of editor is not a ban discussion. It's revert, block, ignore. It's not a perfect solution, but it's the best we have, and it's certainly better than a pointless ban discussion. The energy spent on this type of discussion would be better spent identifying such people earlier, and indef blocking them earlier. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:24, 20 March 2013 (UTC)