The banning policy used to say.....
It now says.....Banned editors' user and user talk pages should be updated with a notice of the ban, linking to any applicable discussion or decision-making pages. The purpose of this notice is to announce the ban to editors encountering the banned editor's edits. Indefinitely site-banned editors may be restricted from editing their user talk page or using email.
This is a significant change. At a stroke, it makes the relatively simple (some might say janitorial) act of placing a template on a user page denoting they are banned, is now something that only an Administrator is trusted to do. Ordinary editors, every last one of them, is now prevented from making this type of edit.A notice of a ban should be placed on a banned user's talk page, linking to any applicable discussion or decision-making pages.
At the discretion of the administrator implementing the ban (or any other uninvolved administrator), or any ArbCom clerk or SPI clerk in the course of their duties, an appropriate template notice (such as {{Banned user}}) may be placed on a site-banned user's user pages and talk pages. Also at their discretion, such pages may be blanked.
The purpose of placing a notice is to announce the ban to editors encountering the banned editor's edits. Indefinitely site-banned editors may be restricted from editing their user talk page or using email.
So why the change? It's simple. Wikipedia is a social network, so when a popular user is banned, their friends get upset and cry and stamp their feet. But since being banned from Wikipedia is not something that can be undone with crying and foot stamping, these pathetic people find other ways to manifest their frustration.
Despite Wikipedia already having several policies to deal with such nonsense, whenever a popular editor is banned (in this case it was the transphobe Roxy the diseased dog) an edit war usually breaks out as editors fight to add and remove the banned template from their user page.
I find it hilarious myself. The thought of people like Roxy being so fragile the cannot handle the simple truth of their account status being broadcast on their user page, is quite funny. Invariably it is the users who were banned because other people can't handle their supposed harsh truths, who end up being offered this counselling service by their pathetic friends. Almost as if somehow, the absence of the template makes it less real.
It is real. Wikipedia editors got sick of Roxy being cute, hinting that science is on his side. They binned him off, not caring that Administrators like Cullen328 tried really hard to protect them. Even he came to regret it quickly, once it was realised Roxy's last minute contrition was probably bul!shit.....
But yes, believe it or not, there are some people who think pretending Roxy isn't banned, helps him and Wikipedia. That's friends for you. Most people can see Roxy only ended up banned because his friends never had the guts to tell him he was an asshole.Maybe I made a mistake trying to keep you around against significant opposition. Very disappointing. Cullen328 (talk) 07:06, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
The policy as written is also pretty stupid. The most famous example of a pathetically fragile user having his wiki-dignity being protected by his pathetic friends is Eric Corbett. And the people crying and stamping their feet and threatening people for daring to place the "Scarlett letter" on precious little Eric's page, were of course, Wikipedia Administrators. His loyal friends.
Floquenbeam certain didn't feel the least bit ashamed or embarrassed that he not only participated in an edit war to get his own way and remove the (multiple) tags needed to describe Eric's fall back into the swamp from whence he came, he then protected the page so only Administrators could edit it. He had no policy based reason to do so, unless I missed the part where "busybodies" is a valid reason.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =920323333
Note that policy didn't prevent Floquenbeam from claiming that it is not random editor's "job" (i.e. right) to deploy a tag that is in wide use and at the time had no policy or instruction saying it can only be deployed by permitted persons.
He did it because he can. He was hurt that his friend had got his just desserts, and lashed out.
Social network, see. All that matters is now many friends you have, and how powerful they are.
Everyone else is just an absolute fucking mug, who has to be perfectly content with volunteering for a website whree, and I shit you not, this was actually an official Administrator comment on the tag warring that led up to this policy change.....
Perhaps realising how fucking stupid that sounded when they wrote it, they proposed the policy change, since before the change, the only thing that would have let anyone know that the tag "shouldn't have been placed" is that, despite being banned for being a transphobe, Roxy still has many friends on Wikipedia.The tag shouldn't have been placed. It shouldn't have been removed. Tamzin 17:14, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
It is a refreshing change at least that Wikipedia is now quietly and without fuss updating its policies to admit that it is a social network. But the rules are more 4chan, less Facebook.