Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Community sanction/Archive 1

Until Werdna stamps out per-page-blocks, semi-protection is the only available option. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 19:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

It still doesn't explain why semi-protection was applied to begin with. I have half a mind to remove it, but I'll ask for more opinions. Titoxd^(?!?) 19:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Well it obviously wasn't me, being not a sysop. The best idea is always to ask the protecting sysop why they protected the page to begin with, as opposed to speculation. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 19:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I've unprotected the page, there's just not enough vandalism going on. We can live with the occasional revert. --

✉ 19:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you there Conti. I was going to do it myself after reading this thread. Semi-move protecting isn't a bad idea... if we need to move this it will be after a discussion of some kind. ---

WRE) 02:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Please no... heavens no. Community bans are serious enough that to trivialize them with templates would be a step in the wrong direction. These things a discussions and attempts to form consensus, give evidence, etc... not votes. ---

WRE) 02:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. No. If you want to have a user banned, at least notify him of the discussion personally. Doing it with a template is unnecessarily inflammatory. Titoxd^(?!?) 02:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I still think the page is rather messy, and some sort of template could help organize it. When I speak of {{afd2}}, I don't mean to suggest that the discussion associated with the template would be in the same style as AfD. That template has nothing to do with !votes or their absence. Community bans are indeed serious -- all the more reason to keep the discussion organized. If a user can't navigate his/her own community ban discussion, that would be a very serious problem. --N Shar 03:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you could create a template so that we can better see what you are intending. Then we can discuss this test template. Navou ^banter / _contribs 00:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to request that, in the future, people leading discussions about community bans or related issues should not try to use preferential voting to express a consensus. List a few options (the fewer the better) and get people to support or oppose them, so that anyone reading the page can see whether there's a consensus for each option.

I'm a fan of using preferential voting in many situations that require actual voting, but a page like this fails at its intended purpose if it takes a calculator to figure out what the consensus is. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 11:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• This is why voting is evil. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 17:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  • It is only one of many reasons why. —Centrx→talk • 18:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

From

• "Gordon Watts should not edit Terry [sic] Schiavo articles directly" To the 1st point, it is clear to me that the community mood is that Gordon Watts should not edit Terry [sic] Schiavo articles directly, This admin points out that I have not edit warred He hasn't edit warred (much) over the links, just complained volubly on the talk page about their removal. Annoying: yes, disruptive: a little, but malicious: no. If he had just edit warred, he'd have got a 24 hour block, but because he spoke up (albeit at great length, over and over) he's being community banned?" If I have not edited improperly, then any ban from editing is improper -and suggests editors' complaints about me responding to their accusations were the reason for the ban -which is not a valid reason on an open wiki.
• Community "mood" does not trump policy here, folks.

• "should not link ... to his own sites" Although I do admit that many years ago, I added a link to one of my newspapers, after having obtained concensus, and this may have been against current policy, that action many years ago is not being discussed or criticised -plus, I was a new editor back then. This admin here quite clearly shows that I did not add any links to my website: "The dispute seems to have started with this uncivil edit summary from Calton. The material Calton was removing was in the article when I joined Wikipedia in April 2005 (before Gordon). The actual link (to a site that Calton objected to, but not Gordon's personal website) was added by Zenger, not by Gordon,[2] although Gordon did revert the person who reverted Zenger.[3]." So, I am innocent of linking to my own site.

• "should not ... suggest links to his own sites" This requirement by the "mood" is against current
  be bold
  in adding directly to articles. But if the above advice makes you concerned that others will regard your contribution as spam, you can find out without taking that risk: Describe your work on the article's talk page, asking other editors if it is relevant."
• If the editors who suggested this restriction don't like me occasionally suggesting my own websites -for occasions when no other link will do (like when The Register was the only paper to cover one
  Terri Schiavo
  Oral Argument hearing in my hometown), then these editors should either change the policy -or leave Wikipedia. The rules are the rules.

• "...should restrict himself to making a very small number of brief comments to Talk pages, of the order of one per day." This is the one possibly valid complaint made against me (I was not guilty of edit-warring or linking my own site, even though one revert did have that net effect). So, a review of the RfBan page for this action will reveal that the editors claimed I was too talkative -and companied about the content of my talk page comments. This editor sums up the community opinion of many (if not most) editors: They felt that I talked too much -and they didn't like what I posted, however to restrict my talk page comments based solely on the content is censorship. Yes, I admit that, on occasion, I sometimes post somewhat lengthy posts -but so did Martin, another user, on the related talk page, as this diff shows, but he is not criticised or restricted. Also, this diff shows my documentation that I did not dominate the talk page, posting far less than half of the comments, even though no one should have objected had I posted even half.
• So, it appears that my talk page comments (in the Community noticeboard talk page primarily) were rejected because of content, but this is censorship: I never threatened to violate concensus or policy, so the mere fact I held a [[minority[[ opinion regarding certain links (many of them not my own newspapers) leads me to believe I was censored because of my minority view -and hints others may have been jealous that I have accomplished so much in this case, more than them.

• • So, in conclusion, we have editors who made many blatantly false statements (such as repeatedly alleging I promoted my personal websites -when, in fact, most of my edits, by and large, have nothing to do with my web newspapers). The one who filed this RfBan is User:Calton, who has a very lengthy history of trouble-making, as shown by bothWikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Calton and by comments from others in the ban request page for me (comment by myself and Musical Linguist come to mind: "Even recently, when Gordon called Calton "Cal" (which I'm sure was not intended to give offence, as lots of editors use abbreviations of names) , and Calton replied with something like "Only my friends get to call me Cal, Gordy-boy." I just see example after example of people taking away the dignity of someone who gets on their nerves."

• • Calton has a very lengthy history of having caused trouble, but he is not guilty of the actions of the other editors; They acted on a matter and made premature conclusions without actually knowing the facts.

• • All one need to do is read the
    Wikipedia:Community_noticeboard#Community_ban_request_on_User:GordonWatts page from top to bottom and see if I am guilty of anything more than strongly defending myself. (I was harshly criticised for defending myself by many editors, and this is one of the kinder criticisms here, where User:Veesicle
    rightly points out this problem of editors simply being annoyed at me defending myself.

OK, did I violate policy -or, rather, did I merely annoy editors, who falsely claimed I had violated policy.--GordonWatts 01:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I should point out that this talk page is for improvements and suggestions for its associated project page. If you disagree with the decision, I would suggest you try appealing to the Arbitration Committee, this is not the place for it though. —Elipongo ^{(Talk|contribs)} 02:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I think your suggestion has merit; I shall do as you say! However, I respectfully point out that my post here is placed in the correct place: See the policy that I quoted immediately above to support this claim. Thank you for your feedback, Elipongo ^{(Talk|contribs)}. I shall grant your request.--GordonWatts 02:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I just want to comment that even if the websites don't have "Gordon Watts" in the URL, they're still personal websites. That was not a "false claim". Call them newspapers if you want; they're personal newspaper sites.

⁸⁶ 02:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

--GordonWatts 02:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it's unlikely that the ArbCom will accept the case as it is currently presented. Specifically because nothing was presented under "Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried". I don't know if the community discussion that spawned the complaint counts as other forms of dispute resolution (for instance, if one had a problem with how a

⁸⁶ 03:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I have mixed feelings on the likelihood that your analysis is correct, but thank you for it, and I feel clean regarding my allegation that I had tried all other remedies to the best available form. Also, this is more than a problem regarding me -how I am treated sets the tone to how all editors are treated when they have minority opinions: Even as others point out, it was more than just the length of my posts.--GordonWatts 03:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I have no dog in this fight, but I read the RFAR, and it seems like your actions there torpedoed your own case. You had a point, which was that the community ban wasn't agreed upon, which was a good point. You had supporters, good ones. You should have stated your case, briefly, then shut up. Instead, your extensive arguments were what mostly convinced the arbcom that Guy was right. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't doubt your neutrality here - I take your word, but I ask you to take my word: Even when I was quiet for like 2 days in the community action, it degenerated into a quagmire, and my continued silence would not have changed things -but I shall meditate on your words: There is a time for silence. PS: I have posted very little in recent hours to that fast-paced ArbCom board -I have made my case -for better or worse, and many think (like you and I) that it's public display will eventually straighten out (in my favour) --it's just a matter of time -so long as I do nothing stupid. (Let's hope :-)

--GordonWatts 15:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

see Wikipedia_talk:Community_sanction#Time_to_revive_this... there is some overlap between this, and the Community Sanction page (and its log). I favour rationalisation of this page, that one, and the Community Sanction log so that discussions get archived appropriately but there is a non automatically archived place to refer to which can tell interested parties what sanctions are in place. Comments? There may be best or here, whichever. ++Lar: t/c 21:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

In the few weeks since its conception, this noticeboard is already rife with topics that might as easily fit on the village pump or admin board. In other words, in effect it serves no clear purpose at the moment except as being Yet Another Page to watchlist if one wishes to keep track of what is happening. >Radiant< 17:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The page being used outside of it's intended purpose is not tantamount to the page having no purpose. To me this is the place to deal with discussions of community bans and such that would normally clutter up other noticeboards. All noticeboards get off topic posts, I believe the best solution would be increased clarification and enforcement of the scope of the page. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• I realize that, but the point is that it is almost exclusively used outside of its intended purpose. I'm sure this board was well-intended, but that doesn't change the fact that at the moment, it is superfluous and redundant. I'm not sure how a Big Notice would fix that considering it doesn't really help on the admin board either. >Radiant< 17:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

It would be fine if we came up with well defined purposes for each board, of course you are always going to have to re-direct some queries. ——

Need help? 22:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I see several examples of it being used well. I think better enforcement of the scope is what is needed. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• I agree, so let's do that! >Radiant< 08:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

"the place to deal with discussions of community bans and such that would normally clutter up other noticeboards"? That seems to me like a bad idea. This page looks like a fork of the Adminitrators' Noticeboard in the form of attempted revival of quickpolls, putting the question of bans to community votes. That is very much not what community bans are about or how they are arrived at, and the whole conception of the page seems wrongheaded. If I ever have need to discuss a potential community ban, it won't be here.

t 09:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• Well, to be fair, the way combans are presently handled on the admin noticeboard also looks like a community vote, even though I'm sure that's not really intended and not really a good idea either. At present, someone says "I want to comban that user" and other people go endorse. At any rate, I would suggest that we aggressively move any content that belongs elsewhere to the correct place (e.g. ANI or the pump). That may (or may not) leave this page rather empty. >Radiant< 10:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

  Most of all, I'd appreciate some clear guidance as to what noticeboard is used for what. How is this different from the Village Pump, for instance? From the Admin's Noticeboard? From ANI? From RFC? I think I know the answers, but it's not spelled out very clearly and I can easily imagine people getting confused. --ais523 10:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Take a look at
    t 05:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• Looking at the current posts,
  • Community ban on Gordon Watts belongs on ANI.
  • Jonathan Ryan indef blocked belongs on ANI.
  • Comban on Classicjupiter also belongs on ANI.
  • Are we supposed to check this page, belongs on this talk page.
  • User abusing minor edits belongs on VPP.
  • Kurdistan-related categories belong on CFD and/or DRV
  • Arbitration closure note, well, I don't know, they get advertised anywhere.
  • Posting of thesis/term paper probably belogns on VPA, or Copyvio page
  • GAC notice belongs on RFC or GO or the wikiproject board
  • User removing context MIGHT belong here if we want a page for "problems with user conduct that don't require admin intervention", although (1) VPA already does that, and (2) not everybdoy knows the difference. Otherwise, ANI.
  • Adding 100+ extlinks ditto, or on the EL talk
  • Proposed indefblock on Buzzard, ANI again
  • Community ban on Miracle, ditto
  • BLP noticeboard needs help, CENT or RFC or GO or A but not here
  • C/P move: RM
  • Clerk discussion: arguably, the village pump; was advertsied on ANI anyway
  • BLP review - I think we've got RFR for that.
• So just about nothing that is posted here could not also have been covered elsewhere. Centralization is GOOD. Fragmentation is not. >Radiant< 10:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with your contention that Community Bans belong on

WP:PAIN, etc) it is just putting more strain on a page that is already overloaded. I agree some of the other posts could go elsewhere, but community bans don't really belong on ANI.--Isotope23 14:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

As for the analysis, I think it starts from the wrong angle. Before looking at the topics here and deciding that they belong elsewhere or that fragmentation is occurring, we should probably try to clearly define what the page is for and what sorts of things that should be seen here. If the header above is clear and correct and it's a simple affirmation that's fine, but if folk end up struggling to communicate the concept of what this noticeboard is entirely for it probably at the least speaks towards a need for a stronger definition or honing as a distinct concept. Bitnine 14:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, I just squeezed in my response to Radiant above.--Isotope23 15:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Bitnine. The purpose of the community noticeboard, as I understand it, is to keep "community ban / block" discussions out of

WP:ANI be thought of as unfair to non-admin members of the community? Anyone is free to post there, after all. The relevant text at the top of the noticeboard is: "If you would like to discuss issues that the community should be aware of, such as proposed community bans, feel free to post them here. The administrators' noticeboard is more geared towards admin-specific issues, and the village pump is centered around discussing policies and proposals; this page is for things directly relevant to the Wikipedia community at large, of both encyclopedic and administrative nature." I think it's not really true that the admin noticeboard deals with admin-specific issues (although it maybe should), but why should this be distinct from the Village pump? Mangojuice^talk 14:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• Of course combans are discussed by the community; the admin noticeboard is fully editable to non-admins (indeed, a good way of becoming an admin is joining those discussions and making helpful comments). However, a ban does require an admin action, hence the name of the board. I wouldn't personally mind discussing combans in some other place, but the main point is that this particular board has no clear distinction from ANI, RFC, RFF and the Pump. >Radiant< 15:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• I see your point, I just don't know if I agree that keeping the discussion at ANI is the best way forward. Regardless though, this is a gray area that needs to be better defined.--Isotope23 15:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• I think it's good to have community ban discussion somewhere other than ANI for two reasons. One, ANI is an admin domain. In theory people should always be free to comment there, but in some discussions it gets to feel like the home turf of admins, and I wouldn't want anyone to be discouraged from participating. But more importantly, community ban discussions should probably take more time than is possible for an ANI thread, and ANI has a heavy load already and community ban threads can be very long and involved. BUT -- this noticeboard should be clearly defined as for that purpose only. A change needs to be made to
  Wikipedia:Community noticeboard/Header. Mangojuice^talk 15:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• My thoughts exactly. What we need here is clearer definition of this forum.--Isotope23 15:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• I agree that this forum needs a more defined role. Looking at Radiant's analysis above, this page seems to be used most often for proposing and discussing community bans/sanctions, so I'll say a few words about those. I suppose they could be moved to an existing forum, though many of them are already overloaded. Also, as pointed out by Mangojuice, community ban discussions tend to hand around longer and thus take up more space for longer periods of time. For this reason I'm not sure we'd want to shift the burden onto ANI. I could see RfC being used for community ban discussions, though the format would likely need some tweaking. If comm bans were handled through RfCs (not sure I like that idea), this board likely wouldn't see much activity. In any case, the first step does seem to be to define exactly what this board is. ChazBeckett 17:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

As for this board itself, I think that it probably does warrant a tightening of the definition. I tend to think that at least three types of things would be good to see here:

• Community bans/sanctions. These are actions undertaken by the community, and while anyone is free to post on AN/I, making participation more accessible and clearly denoting community action to its a good thing, so long as we watch how it unfolds. I think we've seen an increase in nonadmins feeling able to propose and discuss such actions here, and keeping the sometimes voluminous text out of AN/I is good for helping administrators in being able to focus on actionable incidents. Additionally, apparently the arbcom showed some support for the community's right and practice of enacting sanctions and bans.
• "RfC light". For lack of a better formal term, I'm sure most of us have seen miscellaneous problems that impact the community wherein someone suggests an RfC should be started. However, the RfCs supposedly have a threshold of previous attempts to address the issue, which get ignored time to time because the issue doesn't have really a home for its discussion. This board can serve as a home for those community concerns that fall short of that threshold. (Though certainly not to say that those with homes shouldn't be properly channeled.)
• Community review. It seems very useful to have an avenue for a general review of items by a cross-section of the community. This includes both areas where an editor might feel that there is a bias present in a particular project that does not represent the community, and items that do not fall under particular projects, such as a general comment on actions. At the very least, it remains a good place to bring attention to certain items without running into
  canvassing concerns. Bitnine 17:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• • I don't think this is a good place for RfC light: if anything, conduct complaints on an unregulated board like this are likely to cause more hurt feelings and take up more community time than an actual RfC. As for community review: doesn't that duplicate the Village Pump? Mangojuice^talk 18:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• • Ah, you're finally online! --- I had a question about the proper use of this board, and every time I asked it, some talkative poster kept jutting in a big long comment -until finally the thread got shut down! Anyhow, see the question below? Could you please clarify whether a "community ban" is sufficient to be considered an "incident" to be posted on the incident board -or would the action have to rise to the level of a person committing an infraction for it to be an "incident?" Thanks you in advance -and let me repeat, Chaz and company, -if you don't have a question -or don't know the answer, butt out -and let the experts answer the matter. TIA!--GordonWatts 15:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Gordon: IMO it's better to say what kinds of incidents don't belong on ANI, since by default they seem to go there. I think: things that don't require admin attention shouldn't go there, and things that are too complicated and require too much discussion to be resolved in a short amount of time. So in your case, the community ban discussion should not have gone on there (if I had my druthers, it should have been at an RFC, though), but yes, violations of a ban are appropriate on ANI. Mangojuice^talk 15:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
      • That makes sense -and was my initial guess; Thx 4 your analysis.--GordonWatts 15:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I am going to build a bot to archive this notice board (will be listed at bot approvals for BAG action) . Any objections? Navou ^banter / _contribs 13:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Excellent idea.--Isotope23 14:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Um, doesn't Werdnabot do that already? –Henning Makholm 16:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Yep, although the userbox is hidden. It last ran a few hours ago ChazBeckett 17:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I did not see its run this morning, and it looked like some old discussions were still on the page. Navou ^banter / _contribs 00:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

In theory it should be archiving any section where the most recent comment is at least two days old. In practice I believe that missing or malformed signatures might cause a section to be missed. ChazBeckett 00:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I feel as if we need a clear consensus of the purpose of this board, and state that anything else is subject to movement to the appropriate board. I believe this should be wrote into the /header. Thoughts on the wording? Navou ^banter / _contribs 05:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

A proposal: The community noticeboard is for issues that require immediate community action or consensus, or that the community must be aware of. Issues that require the action of only a few administrators should be directed to the appropriate page of the

administrator's noticeboard

instead.

This has its weaknesses, but I think it explains pretty well what this noticeboard is for. --N Shar (talk • contribs) 06:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Why "immediate"? -Amarkov moo! 06:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Because otherwise it should go to the Village Pump. --N Shar (talk • contribs) 06:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

But that's a somewhat arbitrary distinction, and most users will want "immediate" attention to whatever they're suggesting. In other words, what you suggest is basically a "priority" version of the village pump, that will in effect cover the exact same material as the pump does. >Radiant< 08:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe the first purpose of this board ought to be to discuss and determine the first purpose of this board.... except, whoops, I just settled that, didn't I? Okay, so the second purpose of this board ought to be to discuss and determine the second purpose of this board.... wait a minute.... maybe the third purpose of this board ought to be.... no.... I seem to be stuck in some kind of repeating reiterative recursive endless* loop here! -- Ben 09:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
     * Not to mention redundant.

The first rule of Community Noticeboard is, you do not talk about Community Noticeboard. The second rule of Community Noticeboard is, you DO NOT talk about Community Noticeboard. --Random832 18:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I've updated the header. Key changes: the purpose of the board is described to be for discussion of community bans and other actions requiring broad community support. This allows for the ban discussions and also other discussions that really need to be somewhere more visible than the Village Pump. Also, I've removed the standard Admin Noticebord disclaimer directing people to other reporting boards. I also made a note that this page is not a substitute for

• I like your wording to the header. However, I disagree with the removal of the disclaimer. Navou ^banter / _contribs 19:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• *shrugs* We should probably word it differently at least. But go ahead and put it back, I don't mind. :) Mangojuice^talk 20:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Well you may have a very good reason you removed it, that I might be missing. I do not want to revert you if this is the case. It has been suggested that the discussions were fragmenting to this board, I thought perhaps if the users knew where else to go (correctly go) that may ease the fragmentation/influx of posts inappropriate or non germane to this board. What do you think? Navou ^banter / _contribs 21:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I dunno. I don't like the implication that people should be coming to WP:CN with a "message" to be processed, which is what all the advice looks like. I think the header text already tells people where to head for other similar discussions. Having that box there makes it look like this is a page for filing complaints which will then be handled by others, which is more of an Admin noticeboard kind of way of approaching problems. Mangojuice^talk 21:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I've thought long and hard about this board. After reviewing the discussion that led up to its creation and the activity on the board since then, I still feel like this is needless procedural fragmentation fork of community discussion that serves no real purpose. The discussions which are sent here are largely arbitrary and and have led to unfortunate situations like that of the

The AN was never meant for community decisions, it was meant as a place to notify administrators of a) information they should know, such as new policy or features and b) incidents that needed quick administrative intervention. I'm sorry, but the only reason you've given for why CN should be closed is the Essjay straw poll, which obviously was a mistake (and to be perfectly honest, shouldn't have been anywhere — it was removed from the RFC). You have ignored the numerous examples of successful community discussion that has already occurred at a brand-new board, which I don't think is fair. Basically, I don't know why you want to reject i; you haven't given an actual reason in my opinion. Respectfully, —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 00:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Where are you getting your ideas about what AN is for? ANI is for quick administrative intervention; AN is for discussions relevant to administrators. What "successful" discussions have happened here that would not have been just as or more successful on the more-well-watched AN or village pump? It was never and is still not clear what belongs on the "Community noticeboard" that does not belong on AN or VP, and the only reason for its creation was that some people are scared of commenting on AN. —Centrx→talk • 01:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Durova, who is an admin, created this noticeboard. And she's not exactly scared of commenting on AN. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 01:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I know; the reason for creating it though is "although this noticeboard is open to everyone, its title does tend to scare away the unmopified crowd" [4]. —Centrx→talk • 01:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

From the very top of WP:AN. Yes, you're correct, AN is for discussions regarding administrators (my description was more limiting than I intended it to be) — which is NOT what the CN was intended to be. Just take a jaunt through the archive to see successful discussions; I don't know whether they would have been more or less successful somewhere else because they didn't happen there, but I can tell you that most of them shouldn't have been somewhere else (in my opinion). Please note that I am not dismissing this suggestion, I'm simply asking for fully fleshed-out reasons with facts to back them up. I don't feel that the original post did so. If discussion yields valid reasons, then I'd be all for it. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 01:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

AN is for discussions which are relevant to administrators, not regarding administrators. The only use given for this noticeboard when it was created is "community bans", which require an administrator. There were not fully fleshed-out reasons with facts to create the noticeboard in the first place, but it seems to just be an unnecessary and less-frequented fork and duplicate (one that seems to have a lot more bizarre voting too). Come up with a well-defined purpose for this noticeboard before defending its existence. —Centrx→talk • 01:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean to nitpick, but community bans don't require administrators; they require the community to come to a consensus. Blocks can then be issued by administrators to enforce a community ban. It may seem like I'm splitting hairs, but I don't feel that way, and I think that the underlying point is the exact reason why this noticeboard was created — a lot of people think that bans (and other community decisions) are suggested, discussed, and implemented amongst administrators on administrators' noticeboards, which is simply not the case. You and I know that's not the way it works, but a lot of people don't; perhaps all bans could be discussed on AN and we could employ a PR campaign to make it clear that everyone in the community is encouraged to participate, but it seems to me that this is the easiest and most inclusive solution. I'm certainly not married to the idea, and if there is a consensus I certainly wouldn't put up a fight; I just think there are real issues with community involvement in decisions, and this is one way to get people who would otherwise be scared away involved. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 02:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

A ban must be executed by an administrator, and in order for an administrator to do it there must be an administrator who thinks it should be done. —Centrx→talk • 02:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

But then where are people going to put malformed RfCs that don't have a second party to certify having tried to resolve the dispute? Jkelly 00:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

ANI, where they always are ;) --BigDT 05:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the request for evidence, but I would have to agree with Centrx in that we need a well-defined purpose first. That being said, I have reviewed the topic postings in the archive again. As with any board, there will be misposts, (here is a small sample:

I admit that when I first saw this board and noted that the first function noted was the discussion of community bans, I was concerned, for two reasons. First, because boards of that nature have a tendency to take on an unattractive tone, as we saw with the PAIN noticeboard, etc. Second, because community bans require a high amount of oversight and attention, and therefore a new, low-visibility noticeboard is a bad place to discuss them. It seems to me that this page would be best folded back into AN and ANI where there is greater participation. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps rename the "Administrators' noticeboard" to "Administrative noticeboard", same with ANI and AN/3RR? That's what it is, without making it appear that it belongs only to the "Administrators". —Centrx→talk • 07:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that a simple renaming of the Admin noticeboards might help alleviate some of the concerns presented. The apostrophe in "Administrators'" does indicate possession and that probably does put off non-admin editors from fully participating on those pages (I know it does for me and I'm a relatively experienced editor). --ElKevbo 09:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

If community bans are discussed again on the ANI board, that in effect requires non-admins to keep the page on their watchlist. If there was a consensus that all community ban discussions should be kept open for a week, then non-admins could just check the page now and again. However, if community ban discussions are only kept open for around 24 hours, then non-admins are required to sift through a large volume of non-relevant material, if they want to be kept informed. I would suggest that having a separate page is more efficient and shows greater consideration to non-admins.

Addhoc 12:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Strongly agree, with the suggestion to rename the "Administrators' noticeboard" to "Administrative noticeboard" (and redirect the CN to there). --Quiddity 20:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• Agree I also agree with renaming to "Administrative noticeboard" --ZimZalaBim (talk) 14:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

There is an issue with how much material is posted to both AN and ANI. Both are failing to scale very well as Wikipedia grows, so issues posted to AN, especially, are sometimes overlooked in the rush and are archived very quickly. Because of the unmanagable page lengths, we archive after 24 or 48 hours or something - not much, but still we often have 40+ threads there.

I don't know if the CN was a good idea or not - coming from Durova, it was certainly thought through and was offered as an idea much useful to the community, that goes without saying - but folding back into AN fails to solve the original problem at AN: too many people complaining, not enough time and personpower to deal with it.

Perhaps a useful centralised discussion could take place on how we could create a structure of some sort that might scale better? Working to solve the original issues would be more useful to us than simply closing a page now in order to deal with the consequences later.

Sorry if others have said the above already - I'm just back home and "train-lagged" from 48 hours going from Brussels to Equus in London to home again and all words are swimming by me :o) 〈

• I think the board has been a success, and it was demonstrated to be one by the Essjay incident, where the discussion here was much more general than elsewhere, and many more people contributed. whatever can bring more editors into policy discussions needs to be encouraged. There seem to be many people who feel more comfortable about posting here.DGG 01:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't particularly have an opinion on the existence of CN one way or another, but I really like the idea of renaming AN to "Administrative Noticeboard". I think that will go a long way to alleviate the feeling that AN is for admins only (a feeling I certainly had when I got here). Natalie 02:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I feel like AN might be overloaded, but I don't think anything here wouldn't do at the village pump. It definitely seems fragmentary. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 05:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I think this discussion belongs at MfD. Anyone want to list it there? --Random832 17:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• Well, given that the MFD opened by suggesting "I don't want to delete this, I want it merged", clearly it didn't belong at MFD (which has been closed). This talk page is the correct place to discuss this, please do continue.
  (not Proto ►) 11:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

This discussion seems to have stalled without action. Why? It seems perfectly sensible to me to rename "Administrators' Noticeboard" to "Administrative noticeboard" and redirect this page to it. There don't seem to be any strong objections either. Is it simply that no-one's actually gone ahead and pressed the button? Because I'm quite happy to do it. We had quite enough boards before as it is, this kind of process creep is detrimental to our ability to get things done (including removing disruptive elements from the project). --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't really see the argument for getting rid of it, and the person who proposed such a thing has "withdrawn" it anyway. This seems to be serving its purpose well, I see no need to limit the discussion venues available here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Sam, this is a deliberate fork of

WP:ANI where community bans / restrictions were discussed by the cabal (TINC). The aim was not to increase process, but to facilitate more transparent and thoughtful debate and wider participation. Several sanctions arrived at on this board have been reviewed by ArbCom and accepted as sound. Guy (Help!) 14:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The reason for this board to exist seems to be the apparent conflict between 'community bans' being discussed on an 'administrators' noticeboard'. As the functional definition of a community ban is a block that no-one wants to lift, and only administrators can lift blocks, that's purely semantics, and would be far better addressed by changing four letters of the title of WP:AN rather than maintaining yet another noticeboard. As has already been said above. I'm not disputing that the board serves a purpose, because it clearly does, I'm disputing that it needs a separate page. The question is not whether the wheel spins, but whether the car really needs five of them. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 18:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of what happens with this board I would boldly change the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard to Wikipedia:Administrative noticeboard right away. (→Netscott) 18:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I've posted a brief message at Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard to gather further input. If someone else wants to make the change, I'd support it. But I don't see a reason to rush into something that might be divisive or controversial since the current name isn't terribly harmful and the change doesn't *need* to be made immediately. --ElKevbo 15:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Clarification and apology

I guess I misread people's feelings on this discussion page regarding the board's closure. Sorry for wasting everybody's time on this. I would have withdrawn the nom had I not been asleep at the time. I do want to point out that closure and archival seemed like MfD would be an appropriate location, (i.e. Esperanza). There is no point to delete a board with valid discussion. Merging was a secondary option for me. I'm still all for closing the board, but people don't seem to be with me on this. No big deal to me either way, I just thought it would help things run a little more smoothly. Best, IronGargoyle 15:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Wel, the board was only started about a month ago, if that, so it's still in a very early stage ... it would probably be a better idea to readdress whether it is helpful in a few months.

(not Proto ►) 12:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't the one who created this noticeboard. I proposed it, but Kim Bruning actually started the page shortly afterward. Durova^Charge! 22:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Given the discussion above, and given that again there were no topics here that could not as easily belong on either the Admin board or the Village Pump, I think it is wise to suspend this board until we have a clear idea what it is for. Yes, the admin board has trouble scaling, and yes, it would be beneficial to have a clearer purpose to most boards. But creating "yet another" board solves none of these problems, and in fact aggravates them. So we need to discuss - what separate functions do we need a board for, and what clear title should we give them? >Radiant< 11:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:ROUGE. :D Viridae^Talk 11:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it's all incredibly clear. What part are you confused on? What problems have been aggravated by this? --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The purpose of this board indeed needs to be thoroughly discussed before it is relaunched. For clarity's sake, why don't you move it to Wikipedia:Community bans noticeboard? --Ghirla ^-трёп- 12:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• Not really, no. It was launched as a more appropriate venue for discussions of community sanctions, rather than having such discussions on the admin noticeboards (which implies that non-admins should not contribute to the debate, something I don't think anybody wants). Several sanctions form this board have been endorsed by ArbCom. There is a legimitate debate to be had about the best venue and format for these discussions, and how we should word the headers and meta0information, but overall the creation of the board had pretty wide support at the time, it appears to function as designed at least some of the time, and there are ongoing debates which should not be summarily closed off without first finding an alternative venue. Of course some poeple are going to come here hysterically calling for the desysopping of the admin who blocked them for inserting the verifiable fact that George W Bush eats babies, sourced from a really reliable issue of National Lampoon, but that's an issue for clerking. We shut down
  WP:PAIN for good reasons, we need to have an appropriate venue for the discussion of community sanctions which does not have the problems that PAIN had. Where are people supposed to go? I think we need to fix it, not can it, but in any case there is no reason to shut it down while we debate the issue. This is not to say Radiant! is wrong, only that by pulling this we have to go back to something which was less good, remove something which ArbCom appear to see as giving at least reasonable transparency, and end up back where we started. Fix, not close, this one. Guy (Help!) 12:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• Going to have to agree with Guy here. The Essjay controversy as well demonstrated the usefulness of this board when as a community that was very actively discussed here. That said in accord with Radiant!'s thinking I've read that "Adminstrator's" anything is wrong and limiting in terrms of giving the appearance that only folks with administrator tools are entitled to use such areas. The solution that I've seen in that regard is to rename these areas to "Administrative". That would certainly alleviate some of the concerns that Guy is talking about here. As a side note given that User:Radiant! was in an editing conflict with User:Badlydrawnjeff over "suspending" this board this proteciton was highly improper. (→Netscott) 13:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  • No it wasn't, he reverted my edit while I was typing in the protection summary. >Radiant< 13:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• • And the minute you saw the conflict, you should have stopped. Thankfully, someone's reversed you. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• Don't be silly. The dispute did not exist before the action, there was no pre-existing conflict on this page, although the two of you seem these days to immediately take the opposing point of view to each other on pretty much anything. For the most part I agree with radiant!, that less is more when it comes to process and rules, but this is a case where the board was set up for a specific purpose, and it's not clear where that purpose will be fulfilled if it's taken down, plus there are ongoing debates, so while a debate on status is completely appropriate I don't feel that closing it down is warranted just yet. That is not to prejudge what consensus might emerge as to the ongoing scope and existence of this noticeboard. Do please, though, see if you can bring yourself to forget that Radiant! is involved, since you seem to agree with everything he says on principle - my experience is that much of what he proposes makes good sense and serves the aim of culling the Wikikudzu. Guy (Help!) 14:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• Anyway, if this board is intended for discussing community bans, it should be renamed to reflect that; otherwise people will use it as a duplicate of the village pump. >Radiant< 13:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  • How so? This board deals with issues regarding the community, which Village Pump does that?
    the misc pump might come closest, but it doesn't deal with issues the same way this does. I'll ask again - what part are you confused by? --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, just that. But should it be only sanctions, or should it be for other long-running debates? Should it be for centralising discussion of policy mergers, for example? I would say that it should be only for a kind of "RfC lite", where an obvious outcome is expected to be reached rapidly but we want to run it past a lot more eyes as a sanity check. Gordon Watts is about the most complex we'd want this to get, anythign more should go to RfC or ArbCom. Plus this page probably needs a bit of clerking to keep inappropriate stuff off, close debates and move complex cases to another more appropriate venue. Jeff, you could do that. Guy (Help!) 14:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• I'd be glad to do so if people would have me do it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  • That sounds reasonable. >Radiant< 14:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Cool. Hopefully others will help, too. It need not be too formal, just keeping things on track, diverting complex cases to a more appropriate venue, that kind of thing. Hopefully quite a light touch, in keeping with the heated issues which are likely to come here. If you can persuade Gordon Watts to post a maximum of 500 words per thread that would be a bonus :o) Guy (Help!) 14:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• Now now, don't ask too much of me here... --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I sure like the discussion I had going suddenly completely vanishing. It would be nice if you could have at least left the ongoing discussions in place instead of blanking the page and just tossing the suspend tag up. Jtrainor 12:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I proposed the board to discuss community actions for two reasons: the above mentioned community ban discussions and

Potentially this board could handle other matters related to community decision making. At my request, the arbitration clerks have started posting notices of closed cases here because such things are of interest to the entire community and are easier to locate here than on the high traffic administrator boards.

I never encouraged the Essjay discussion to lodge here: this isn't RFC. This could handle other issues related to community decision making on an ad hoc basis. Even if it does little more than house community ban discussions, it's an advantage to the project to archive those at one easily referenced location. I've pored through the

So if you want to enhance this board's purpose, set

• I think the purpose is clear as stated in the /header "Welcome to the community action noticeboard. This forum was created for the discussion of community bans, or other sanctions requiring broad community input. " If no objections I will remove the tag. Navou ^banter / _contribs 15:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Durova^Charge! 15:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Note that I added that clarification in the header this morning (GMT) in response to the discussions above, and I am certainly not averse to something on the page which encourages ongoing debate about scope and purpose. That seems to em to e a good thing, especially with something this new. Guy (Help!) 16:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I concur with the addition. I however think that we should not suspend or place an unclear notice on this board. Lets leave this basic purpose in the /header and flesh out from there. I would fathom to say the board now has a clear defined purpose. It can now be modified as need be and as consensus is achieved. Navou ^banter / _contribs 20:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

<rant>When this board first opened I started threads both here and at

There's a similar propose discussion...ignore...fester... dynamic happening again at this board, at

• Well to be honest I think we are mostly just getting on with the job of doing it, and not talking about it much. This board seems to me to work acceptably well so far, but I'm up for more discussion if it would be profitable. Trouble is, my watchlist is virtually unusable these days so i tend to rely on some kind of flag being raised. Guy (Help!) 00:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• Would the following help: 1) Add to the Community Ban policy that the blocked user must be notified via their user talk page (or a talk page of a recent sockpuppet). The user can then post their defence on their own talk page. 2) Because permabanned users tend to try to find any excuse possible to appeal the ban, strongly encourage the community discussion to be closed by an admin who has as little history as possible with the user, the user's POV, the user's friends, or the user's enemies that would raise questions of bias. Sorry about the anon's vandalism. You're in good company if this guy has vandalised your page: [5][6] Kla'quot 05:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with this last part; any admin should be allowed to close the debate. I feel this is in danger of getting bogged down and legalistic. The point of the community ban thing, as opposed to having to trudge to ArbCom, was speed and efficiency in the case of serious troublemakers. We need to keep things lean. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I mostly agree that any admin should be allowed to close the debate, within the usual limits of not blocking people to gain advantage in content disputes. It's just more practical for some admins to do it than others. When a community-banned user appeals to Arbcom that they weren't treated fairly, it's expedient if Arbcom can quickly evaluate that the closing admin had no ball in the game, and decline to open the case. The challenge is to word it so that involved admins are encouraged to not close the debate, without giving banned users additional license to complain. We have a long tradition of community discussions being closed by uninvolved admins, and I don't see why community ban discussions are different. Kla'quot 07:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad to see this getting attention. Regarding closure, I agree it's a good idea for an uninvolved admin to act so that the action is above suspicion. I won't go so far as to codify that in policy language. Take this example of a community banned user who conducted extensive disruption including a personal threat to another editor while appealing his community ban. We need to maintain a flexible response because the people who need community banning are the ones most likely to exploit policy and they're at their most disruptive when they know the game is almost up.

In light of those considerations I've been drafting some updates for

• The current time sequence for action should be changed from ban first-discuss afterward to neutrality over whether the discussion or the action comes first.
• Language would expand to note the community's option to topic ban (
  WP:DE
  would also mention this).
• A user who is the subject of a proposed community ban has a reasonable expectation of notification and the opportunity of defense. Notification would be via post to his or her user talk page while the discussion is open and defense would go into the discussion or, if the user is blocked, via the user's own talk page. Notification and defense are reasonable expectations rather than rights and a disruptive user may forfeit these expectations by being unreasonable. For instance, the community is not obliged to wait for a defense statement before taking action. (I'm not certain whether this would be better at the policy or the guideline level. Perhaps a brief mention in the policy and a fuller expression in the guideline).

Durova^Charge! 13:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Your proposed changes sound good to me. Thanks Durova. Kla'quot 16:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Yup, also agree your proposed changes seem very sensible, thanks for all your effort in organising this.

Addhoc 18:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I have not even bothered to read the banning policy, so take all this for what it's worth: why the need to notify and allow editors to respond to community ban proposals? It seems unnecessarily bureaucratic, legalistic and most importantly a waste of time. If there's a reasonable belief that an editor could provide a "defense" shouldn't the case go straight to ArbCom? Isn't the community ban process supposed to be a streamlined and efficient process, a minimum of fuss and not much time and effort expended—only for the obvious cases? Based on the ban discussions i've seen, the manner those editors went about "defending" themselves is the reason they were exhausting the communities patience in the first place. If a ban proposal needs statements in defense and legalistic procedures then isn't it better handled by the committee? Waste their time rather than the community's.—

eric 17:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Disagree eric, I think we should be able to arrange a straightforward template that would only take a minute to post.

Addhoc 18:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Eric, two of my links in the long statement above point to recent instances where a community banned editor appealed the decision to ArbCom and based the appeal in part on those points: since these problem users were blocked while the decision was ongoing and not notified until after it closed, the community effectively denied them the means of defense. I wouldn't establish notification or defense as absolute rights. Having dealt with many problem editors, I know how such standards could be gamed. Yet it's reasonable to let the person know what's up so long as they're reasonable enough to supply a prompt and topical response without exploiting the opportunity with further disruption. ArbCom may decide this issue for the community if we don't decide it ourselves: the Committee is leaning toward opening a case for

WP:RFAR#Request_to_review_indefinite_block_of_User:BabyDweezil. Durova^Charge! 20:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Disagree per Durova -- if the editor cannot make his or her voice heard, then effectively we're putting someone on trial without giving them the chance to speak. I actually would prefer the ArbCom to accept the case (although as of this posting it's sitting at 6/4/1/0) since it is not due process if accused user can't defend themselves. - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 04:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

At the risk of

WP:BEANS (which seems to be a small risk at this particular thead), certain types of disruption may render attempts at notification meaningless. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gundagai editors in which a disruptive user refused to register any account and edited through a shifting range of variable IP addresses. In other cases a blocked editor could forfeit the option of a defense by abusing the privilege of editing his or her own user talk page until the talk page needs to be protected, or perpetrating ongoing abuse that hastens the community's decision. The proposed language keeps the community options flexible. The balance we need is to provide fair options to users who can offer a real defense without tying our hands when we deal with genuine trolling. Durova^Charge! 05:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

An editor has boldly placed a purpose in the header. What we need to achieve now is a consensus for this purpose, or a consensus for a wording. I would recommend that we leave the wording as is until we achieve a consensus one way or another. Are there any thoughts on the current wording? Navou ^banter / _contribs 20:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, are there any objections to the moving if this project page to

• Oppose. No need to restrict its scope to negative actions, and attempting to do so would only attract opposition to having it. See Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Personal_attack_intervention_noticeboard. Durova^Charge! 21:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Makes sense, motion withdrawn. Navou ^banter / _contribs 14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, it shuold definely be renamed to something. The present name can imply that it is for everything that involves the community, and that is simply not the case. >Radiant< 07:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the current name is too generic and does not reasonably reflect the purpose of the board. Please rename. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 07:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

How about Wikipedia:Village pump (disputes)? This isn't even a noticeboard if you think about it, but it's definitely about disputes. And sanctions, I suppose, but not every dispute results in a sanction. >Radiant< 08:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Please, not another village pump. Seriously, who regularly reads all six village pumps nowadays? This page is for important discussions regarding the community, IMHO. Banning someone,

big policy changes/merges, Essjay. At least I see it that way. I know that the top of this page says otherwise, but having one page on my watchlist (and not half a dozen) to keep up with the important stuff just sounds kinda useful to me. --Conti|✉ 14:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• Yes. And therein lies the problem. Everyone who reads these pages wants a single page for The Important Stuff. Only some people use another page, such as
  WP:GO. The result is that (1) announcements that are actually important have to be made in all of these, and (2) people who think they're particular issue is important (but are wrong) will post it to all of these in an attempt to get attention. And that is why we need a clear purpose for noticeboards. >Radiant< 15:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

How about "Community Discussions" (err...

WRE) 20:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with either the current name or the current location. This is a noticeboard for community decision making. Naturally a few things will get posted mistakenly by editors who either don't know the ropes or try to game the system. That happens at every noticeboard, so there's no reason to single out this one on that basis. Durova^Charge! 20:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Someone up above suggested Community Action Noticeboard, I think...I quite like that one. I think Community Noticeboard is just a bit too vague, and actually invites inappropriate posts. --InkSplotch 16:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• That's an improvement, yes. But if we're going to use this for sanctions we might as well be honest about it. PAIN wasn't deprecated for the name but for the structure, after all. >Radiant< 16:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Although the current name is fine with me, I've no objection to InkSplotch's suggestion. Durova^Charge! 04:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• Any strong objections to Wikipedia:Community action noticeboard? Navou ^banter / _contribs 18:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Go for it. >Radiant< 12:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

No problems with it. But i do think it's redundant and a waste of effort.

I mean, what would one do on a community noticeboard....except discussion community issues and then make decisions on community actions? --`/aksha 12:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Certainly an improvement. --Dweller 12:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• It could be sanction noticeboard as well. After all, the board is for sanctions. The only objection to that name so far is based on the (incorrect) assumption that WP:PAIN was deprecated because of its name. >Radiant< 12:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

So the problem we have is that "Community noticeboard" is too generic, but "Community sanction noticeboard" (which reflect this board's purpose) sounds bad. So we...compromise (?) on "Community action noticeboard", because we do indeed want a descriptive name, but don't really want to describe it because the description sounds bad...

i just don't know whether or not to laugh. Meh...whatever, no strong objections. Rename it if it makes people happy. Community action noticeboard will make it clear to the newbies that this board is for deciding on community action, and not for planning community parties. --`/aksha 12:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Point is it doesn't really sound bad. There's just one or two people who claim it does, but there are far more people that claim the current name is bad. >Radiant< 12:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

"There's just one or two people who claim it does" <<<by this, are you referring to the name "Community Sanctions noticeboard" or "Community action noticeboard"? --`/aksha 13:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• I was referring to "sanctions". It is alleged to be abusive but it really isn't, and it's alleged that PAIN was closed down because of the name (which is false), and it's thus inferred that such a name would also close down this board (which is also false, not to mention unfounded). >Radiant< 14:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

If ais423's description (below) is accurate and this board is going to become just a community ban request board, then sanction would be the most correct/accurate name. Or maybe even just Community bans noticeboard. (on a side note, i thought "PAIN" was a great name, or at least the acronym was great. Loved the pun behind having a personal attack noticeboard being nicknamed "pain".) --`/aksha 15:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Yes. Discussing community bans or sanctions is the only definition of this board I've heard that isn't fully redundant with some other board already in existence. Incidentally, it's also what the header says. >Radiant< 16:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The point

I'm confused about the point of this, as opposed to AN or AN/I. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

AN = things for administrator's attention. AN/I - incidents needing administrator investigation? Communikty Noticeboard (it seems) is for deciding on community bans, as oppossed to admin blocks. --`/aksha 12:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• I'm still not convinced either that this board isn't redundant. >Radiant< 12:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

As I see it: AN: miscellanious things where you need the attention of an admin or all admins (alerting backlogs when adminbacklog is needed, telling admins about new software features that only apply to them, and a few oddball requests such as requesting a rename into another user's .js space or speedying a page on which the db-template isn't working (both of these have happened to me)); AN/I: requesting blocks of users who aren't obvious enough for AIV, requesting immediate administrator interference in an issue where the other noticeboards like AN3 and RFPP aren't appropriate, requesting a review of an admin action (often by the admin who took the action); CN: requesting community bans on users (I think). If I'm wrong after this long on Wikipedia, someone needs to clarify the headers yet again. --ais523 14:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• I'm glad that you have a clear distinction. It would help if everybody else also had a clear distinction, and if their distinction matched yours. Please help in modifying the various page headers to make this work. >Radiant< 14:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty to add userchecks below the headers of sections on proposed community bans, because this gives a one-line linklist to available subpages -- and where there are no such subpages, to the reporting and/or summary pages. Format: <p align=center>{{usercheck|1=username}}</p>   May I suggest this as possibly helpful? -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 00:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Yep, thanks.

Addhoc 18:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Please archive all closed community ban discussions. Ban requests that demonstrate bad faith or ignorance of the process can be useful examples for how to refine community banning procedures. Also, if a user keeps lodging frivolous requests it could become necessary to cite the archive of the threads that person started. Durova^Charge! 18:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• I usually archive everything, something I missed? Navou ^banter / _contribs 18:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Ahh I see here. Agreed, everything needs to make its way to the archives. I believe trolling needs the closure/archive template and make its way to the archive. Navou ^banter / _contribs 18:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Cheers, Durova^Charge! 21:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of closing the ban discussions with the default close template. Does anyone with more expertise in the template namespace want to make us a better closing template for this purpose? Navou ^banter / _contribs 13:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

If I were better at coding I'd lend a hand. No objections from me if you try. The current template looks adequate. Durova^Charge! 21:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but exactly what are you looking for in a "better closing template"? Could you be a bit more specific about what you want to see changed? Because to me, the current closing seems to look fine, and serves its purpose well. --`/aksha 08:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps current is adequate then. I just don't like the color I reckon. Navou ^banter / _contribs 05:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Shall I go ahead and update the navboxes and move the archives? --Edokter (Talk) 18:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that would be awesome. I was dreading it myself, attention span is spent. Navou ^banter / _contribs 19:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• All done. I'm keeping the redirects in place, because there are quite a lot of links pointing to the old archives. --Edokter (Talk) 19:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I have started a page in my userspace devoted to a succinct listing of community-banned users with dates and links to community discussion. The page is at User:Physicq210/Community ban discussions. Feel free to add more entries and/or otherwise improve the page as necessary. Any advice appreciated. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 03:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I see that it is now unneeded. I have deleted my page. —210physicq (c) 04:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

But please feel free (and welcome!) to add your efforts to

WP:ANI

. Oh boy, would some help be nice!

By the way, I've updated the {{

WP:BANNED#Verdict. The same feature is in {{usercheck}}, which I recommend for ban proposals, so even if the section header omits the username, noticeboardname#username will find the entry, e.g. WP:CN#Roitr or even #Roitr while that entry's still on this page, -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 05:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps. Once I have time I might clean up the summaries in the list to make it more concise and direct. —210physicq (c) 05:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

This section discusses the merits and mechanics of community personal attack paroles (per Bitnine's suggestion). Durova^Charge! 15:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• We have banned a editor from subsets of the project here. Perhaps this is an applicable precedent.
• Discussion on actions for the CSN/WP:CN as a whole may be better on the talk page. Are there any strong objections to refactoring the discussion not relating directly to the ban on the editor; moving those comment to the talk page? (only one objection is enough to stop me form doing it)Navou ^banter / _contribs 15:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Is this noticeboard's talk page the appropriate venue for such a discussion? This regards the scope of community action and implementation of an innovative proposal rather than the mechanics of operating the noticeboard. Durova^Charge! 16:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

heh, I had a totally different response before the edit conflict. But, after I saw the clarification, I think I understand the intent here. Perhaps creating a "Community Action" guideline page and discussing it there. This community action initiative is growing and perhaps deserves its own guideline or policy. I do not think it would be creep at this time. Navou ^banter / _contribs 16:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

add to above: However, I do not think the main noticeboard is appropriate. Talk page and link to VPP, AN in my opinion. Navou ^banter / _contribs 16:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

This all seems to fall under the umbrella of

WP:RFAR. My last effort to do so ran into some unexpected difficulties. Durova^Charge! 16:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Speaking as an admin, I have on several occasions warned an editor who has been making personal attacks. Such warnings, paraphrased, boil down to something like "This (link), This (link), and this (link) are personal attacks/grossly incivil. If you persist in such incivil behaviour, you will be blocked for editing. This is your final warning." Effectively, such a warning amounts to a personal attack parole administered and enforced by a single admin. I think it would be nice to have a venue for community discussion/implementation of such paroles. The benefits are twofold. First, it opens the process up by allowing additional editors to comment (rather than just the few people who might stray onto the paroled editor's talk page). Second, it allows for more than one editor to keep track of the parolee. When I issue such a warning now, I feel obliged to monitor the conduct of the individual I've warned as well as the conduct of editors who might try to take advantage of my warnings. Allowing multiple admins to investigate and monitor these sorts of complaints and disputes would (hopefully) make enforcement more uniform. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

No, really, it is not. For that reason I think that using bolded statements like support and oppose should be strongly discouraged as a way of thought here, or possibly be edited to de-bold them. >Radiant< 15:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT a bureaucracy. I think that we shall look at what people are writing, not what they're highlighting. Of course, simple votes without argumentation should be discouraged. MaxSem 17:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I see what Radiant is saying and I'll try not to boldface my opinions here in the future. Seems that we envision different routes toward a similar end. Durova^Charge! 20:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I frequently refactor comments on this page to make it seem less vote like. Viridae^Talk 22:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

May I still bold things like pointless, or weird, or What?? -Amarkov moo! 02:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh go ahead. Just don't make it look like a vote - ie Support or Oppose' Viridae^Talk 02:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. If you've looked at

WP:RFC/N lately you'll see what I'm trying to avoid here. >Radiant< 10:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I can only guess that this editor has very little familiarity with either this board or with PAIN to make such assertions. Durova^Charge!

You can raise issues of any kind on the

village pump. >Radiant< 09:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if I can handle another rename. :P Navou ^banter / _contribs 12:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

As the editor who proposed this noticeboard I'll clarify the original idea:

WP:PAIN comparison is equally off target: I don't recall seeing BigDT before at either of these boards. If you'd like to become involved here we're happy to have you. Please become familiar with the workings before proposing changes. Durova^Charge! 13:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

(moved from WP:CN) Navou ^banter 12:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC) Some people might be interested in the above discussion on RFC reform. Moreschi ^{Want some help? Ask!} 14:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I urge editors who are regulars at this noticeboard to keep a watchful eye for potential attempts at misuse. At Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Durova I recently gave evidence about what I believe to have been a political attempt to leverage the community sanctions process to gain the upper hand in an edit dispute.

My advice to other editors here is, if another such attempt occurs, open a request at

Will do. Additionally should we preclude editors actually involved with the content dispute to propose community sanctions? Navou ^banter 21:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand the gravamen of Durova's concern. This page should viewed as a means of addressing serious problems and not as a means to "get" one's opponents banned from articles or the site as an alternative to engaging their arguments.

On the other hand, I have seen the implication that it is illegitimate, as a form of "canvassing," to inform other users involved in an article or project that a discussion is going on here. That, I think, may be overstating things somewhat. There may be many circumstances in which other users who have been affected by the conduct of the subject of a discussion here, such as editors on an article where there has been edit-warring or misconduct, will be the best-informed on whether there is a problem, how serious it is, and what steps would be best advised to put a stop to it. And yet, only a very small fraction of Wikipedians are going to watchlist or regularly monitor the contents of this noticeboard. Thus, I can readily imagine circumstances under which one would want to advise other users of a discussion here, not as a "political attempt to leverage the process," but to ensure the most informed discussion.

Where and how to draw the line as to when such efforts are appropriate may require a bit of nuance and further discussion. As Durova indicates, a pending arbitration case may also provide some guidance. Newyorkbrad 22:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The difficulty is where to draw the line. I make no secret of my position: I would prefer to restore the original wording of

WP:BLOCK#When_blocking_may_not_be_used

:

Blocking to gain an advantage in a content dispute is strictly prohibited. Admins must not block editors with whom they are currently engaged in a content dispute.

I agree that the prohibition at

WP:DE. Note that the change in guideline language did not prevent frivolous demands for my recusal: disruptive editors exploit any conceivable principle that appears to serve their immediate interests. In my opinion the community did nothing but open a dangerous loophole when it changed the guideline, but until or unless new consensus forms I'll do my best to operate within the present wording. It's certainly causing me a good deal of hassle. Durova^Charge! 03:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

That said, I would also note that the noticeboard should not treat kindly editors who attempt to manipulate the process through excessive canvassing—or by another means. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Bear in mind that I have not called these discussions votes. Durova^Charge! 15:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Just a note that it need not be an admin to close these discussions. Additionally, perhaps we need to change the wording of DE to reflect uninvolved editors. Navou ^banter 18:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

This system seems to working fairly ok, but I'm slightly nervous due its similarity to the discontinued quickpolls process. Has anyone been thinking about ways to keep this process under control? --Kim Bruning 17:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Could you define or link quickpolls? I'm sorry, I don't mean to be obtuse. :P Navou ^banter 17:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Quickpolls. See especially its history. —Cryptic 17:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Any discussion process to sanction users will resemble a quickpoll. The format is, so far as I can tell, the only way we've used to analyze large numbers of opinions on Wikipedia. -Amarkov moo! 17:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Large numbers? Ok, so you're saying this is a system that does not scale, and that it does in fact resemble a quickpoll, and that we know no means to prevent that? Is that summary correct?

(Not that I agree or disagree at this moment in time, just summarizing your statement and its consequences as I understand them?)

--Kim Bruning 17:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Let me try to rephase. All decision making processes I've seen that involve a substantial number of people follow the format of "bolded opinion, further comment"; RfCs don't count because they can't actually enforce anything. I don't know whether that is because there is no other process that works, or just because it was the original format and nobody will change it. I think when people say that they don't like the format, they envision the process on article talk pages. The problem is, that only works with maybe eight people, and only works well with around three. -Amarkov moo! 17:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

yes, no, sort of. There are some methods that work quite well up to maybe 100-150 people (the theoretical limit). Hmm.--Kim Bruning 18:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I have closed most of the discussions here. To be honest, I ignore anything bolded and read the comments behind them. Then I assign a weight to the argument. After that, I evaluate for consensus. If the discussions are closed in this manner, and discussion are refactored to remove bolding, I think quickpolls can be avoided. This is after all, not a poll or a vote, and as long as it is not closed in this manner, then I think we will be ok. This discussion was closed as no consensus. If you look at the arguments, there is not enough discussion to determine a community consensus. If it were a poll, then the editor would have been banned. Thoughts? Navou ^banter 17:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think it's actually too bad, as long as somehow people stay out of the current RFA trap. My main worry is that well, RFA did fall into that trap, and now we're sort of stuck. If we can actively prevent the same happening here, I think this process will be fine for years. :-) Any ideas on prevention? --Kim Bruning 18:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Any objections to adding to the /header "Bolded recommendations will be refactored to remove bolding, and simple recommendations without rationale may be discounted"? Navou ^banter 18:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

(ec)I think people are focusing too much on the appearance. A comment, with the summary of the opinion at the beginning in bold, is still a full comment, it just has the summary (Endorse, Not Endorse, etc.) at the beginning in bold for fast reading. Meaning someone can scan the page and get a sense for the type of comments that are on there, and which way they are leaning. Should they want to know more about how each person feels, they can read the comments. Just to confirm, I'm basically hearing everyone upset that people are bolding such things as endorse, no endorse, etc.?

And yes, I object... per reasoning above before Edit Conflict. CASCADIA^Howl/_Trail 18:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand your meaning, however, if I quickly scan the bolded recommendation, do I really have an idea of what consensus is? And if other editors quickly scan the bolded recommendations, are they going to read the rationale before they post. I know that was presumptuous, but every editor is different. We want to avoid even the appearance of voting. Eventually, it will become voting. Lets nip it in the bud. Navou ^banter 18:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I somewhat understand the concern that discussions will simply become: Endorse, signed Bob. As far as your concern of knowing what consensus is, I have to ask: What is the difference between saying:

Endorse, the user is consistently ignoring policy and has refused to cooperate. (sig)

- AND -

The user is consistently ignoring policy and has refused to cooperate. (sig)

Both are exactly the same thing, and 90% of comments will basically say the same thing, only with slightly different wording (or be for the opposing side, but you get the idea). When a discussion comes up on a subject that really has two options: To support the proposal, or to not support the proposal, what are people looking for? People either agree or disagree, and everyone has their own take on it. In a quest to extinguish !votes, we basically are just telling people "Don't bold". That is really it.

I'm seriously looking for some insight into what people are looking for. A 1 page essay on why an editor has their opinion, complete with diffs and external links to prove their opinion? As far as I have seen, no, all that is being asked is people to decide whether or not a ban on a user (on this board) is acceptable. The difference between a vote and a discussion when their comments are in a nutshell are nothing more than Yea or Nay is really not there anyway. A quest to remove the appearance of voting isn't going to change anything but people adding bold marks around the summary of their opinion. A great waste of time if you ask me. CASCADIA^Howl/_Trail 18:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the problem with bolded "support," "endorse," "oppose," etc. just as long as there is a rational reason backing it up. The bolded word is essentially a summary of one's opinion, while the rest are just rationales and/or clarification regarding the opinion. Unbolding these words do nothing. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 19:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I could go without the bolding. However, is consensus here is that we permit bolding, then we permit it. I think slippery slope applies. Navou ^banter 19:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Personally I'm trying to figure out what the difference is between a straight vote (Yea or Nay), a Comment w/bolded summary (For (reason)/Against reason) and the unbolded, long-winded "comment" (I agree because/I disagree because). They all say essentially the same thing, except the straight vote doesn't give any reasoning. A long winded comment is the exact same thing as a comment with a bolded summary (aka "vote"), only your opinion is not made to stand out from your reasoning. It would be like being asked to decide for or against an action, only you can't vote, only comment. I'm not sure I understand this great fear against anything that even 'resembles' voting. Like I stated above, and yet have not received anyone's clarification on, it is always going to be 'voting', whether or not we have bolded words or not. Unless everyone is required to enter a full paragraph with examples, diffs, and evidence to comment/express their opinion on such things as a proposal to ban someone, then it is in essence a vote... either for or against. CASCADIA^Howl/_Trail 20:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Voting on community sanctions (can be/has been/will be) gamed. For instance, a group of trolls/vandals has ganged up/can gang up/will gang up and sanction an admin who blocked them. --Kim Bruning 20:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC) Since wikipedia has a lot of people joining and leaving, it is a bit annoying to wait for everyone to learn the same lessons the hard way each time, I guess. "Quickpolls has died, quickpolls has risen, quickpolls will come again?"

But not voting (!voting is still voting to some degree) on community sanctions will be gamed, too. If it is truly not taken into account how many people agree with something, than whoever closes will have to impart their personal views on the entire community, because there's no other way to close if you can only weigh arguments. And that is not good. -Amarkov moo! 20:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

(ec)Kim, What is preventing the same group of trolls/vandals from commenting to cause the same effect? A few keystrokes? If such a group is hell-bent on causing disruption, then they will cause disruption. Also, to state it is a bit annoying to wait for everyone to learn the same lessons the hard way each time is a assumption of ignorance. CASCADIA^Howl/_Trail 20:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I say no to bolding - yes, there's no difference, but it will lead to voting: leave the comments but remove the bolding - yes to discussion, and yes to our current closers, who I think to be doing a good job of accurately judging consensus and ignoring numerical majority. Discussions should be left open for quite a while, so that everyone can have their say. Moreschi ^{Want some help? Ask!} 20:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Moreschi, you agree there is no difference, why do you assume it will lead to voting? If what we are doing now is essentially voting with a long winded reason (with some rebuttles), then what exactly are we accomplishing? Any admin who is closing can look at a really short comment and say "There is no content to their argument" and skip over it. CASCADIA^Howl/_Trail 20:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if just keeping or removing bolding is a big deal. It's more important to watch out that you don't start counting opinions for and against just like that, and you need to be careful when people stop actually reading each others arguments, and stop coming to a negotiated agreement.

@Cascadia "block this user, because I don't want him to stop me from trolling" probably won't work too well in a consensus based environment ;-). This is especially true when we also use Ignore All Rules properly:

Wikipedia is a game of calvinball, we're calvin, and the trolls are the ball.

--Kim Bruning 22:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I see that as of yet not a single person has addressed any of my statements and requests for clarification. So far, I have asked:

1. "I'm seriously looking for some insight into what people are looking for. A 1 page essay on why an editor has their opinion, complete with diffs and external links to prove their opinion?" What exactly is everyone looking for as far as a 'legitimate comment' or 'not a vote'?
2. "What is preventing the same group of trolls/vandals from commenting to cause the same effect? A few keystrokes? If such a group is hell-bent on causing disruption, then they will cause disruption." Again, another serious legitimate question for those who feel that bolding will lead to voting and/or troll/vandal abuse... what is stopping any troll or vandal from entering long-winded replies if they truly want to disrupt the project?
3. "Moreschi, you agree there is no difference, why do you assume it will lead to voting? If what we are doing now is essentially voting with a long winded reason (with some rebuttles), then what exactly are we accomplishing?"

These three items, no one here has responded to, and they are legitimate concerns. We have a movement here to remove something that in all seriousness does not need to be removed. Everyone is afraid of voting, some say it is because

Wikipedia is not a Democracy, but we are a project of individuals whose input is requested in situations where the choices are A or B. Others say it will invite trolls to abuse the process... and I ask (repeatedly) WHAT is stopping them from doing this now? Furthermore, no matter how long your statement is for or against a particular action, it is still at it's core, a vote for or against. CASCADIA^Howl/_Trail 00:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

To all intents and purposes, this is quickpolls. Like quickpolls, we don't have to use it, and given its very dodgy history we should never rely on it. --Tony Sidaway 01:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

If we don't want to rely on it, we need a better system. Does anyone have a better system? -Amarkov moo! 01:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not for removing anything really. Just warning against voting for or against in this particular limited context. If people start seeing things as voting for or against, then this system becomes the same as quickpolls; which was a previous system already (empirically) proven to be broken. So Don't Do That (tm). Otherwise it's fine. :) --Kim Bruning 01:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, quite. I don't think we need anything to replace this system. If it won't be used it won't be missed (I've been involved in a number of community bans and we didn't need a forum for it). If it is used, and no problems arise, then it'll be useful. If someone gets blocked and nobody ever unblocks, that's a community ban. --Tony Sidaway 01:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

This section needs more comments to close definitively Navou ^banter

Why?

We've been told -- repeatedly, at length, and with emphasis -- that this is not a vote, that what is measured is not the number of opinions but their basis in fact and policy.

So why, now, should numbers be important? -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 02:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• Not looking at numbers.
  Banning is not done by agreement of a handful of editors. From WP:BAN - "Community bans must be supported by a strong consensus and should never be enacted based on agreement between a handful of admins or users." Would like to see more than four editors contribute discussion before closing as banned. Otherwise, it may be closed as no action, or equivalent closure. Navou ^banter 02:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• So how many editors is "a handful"?

  Or, more to the point, how many is more than "a handful"?

  Is the same number required for every case? -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 02:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• Judgment call. I think it is a judgment call. Do you think it should be closed now, and if so, which way? Navou ^banter 02:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• I don't think I should be the one to make a "judgment call" on the banning policy (or any banning decision), when I also work on maintaining the list of banned users. I'd just like to know what the heck the policy is, now and then, especially if we're supposed to actually follow it. There's a determinable quorum for arbitration, even though it varies by how many arbiters are active at the moment. Wny not a determinable quorum for community bans? -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 03:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• Community bans are not by vote, so a quorum would be meaningless. Any uninvolved intelligent good-faith person can enact a community ban; the only reason for discussion is to expose various evidence that may not be fully known and to expose reasons to the light of other minds. —Centrx→talk • 03:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• And that brings us back to "Do"... or rather, the same thing I said earlier, starting at "Why?" Thank you for completing the circle. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 06:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The blocking admin requests a review, then CSN is a good venue. The blocking admin has requested review, this is an acceptable use. I have restored the content removed here. Regards, Navou ^banter 02:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I've just undone revision 122662519, which undid revision 122638406 to a version which claimed that a community ban "is outside the scope of the CN" -- a claim palpably at odds with what actually does happen at WP:CN. The reasoning behind that claim (and revision 122662519) is incomprehensible to me. Please discuss before reimposing it. Thank you. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 01:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

A ban is not only imposed by the community. A ban can also be an indefinite block that no administrator in their right mind would lift. This applies to Daniel Brandt. His ban is completely outside the scope of WP:CN.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• If the community wants to lift a ban, why would they not have the option to do so? Navou ^banter 03:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

No one in their right mind would lift the ban on Daniel Brandt.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

"19:25, 18 April 2007 Jimbo Wales (Talk | contribs) unblocked Daniel Brandt (contribs) (Courtesy unblock, he asked nicely, we are talking about a productive way forward in the future, it has been more than a year)"

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 21:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Then you can rest assured; the consensus reading (which you deleted before archiving your revision) reaffirmed the community ban. What you archived instead was a declaration (citing no policy anywhere) that a community ban is outside the scope of the

list of banned users. But exactly when, where, and by whom, was the community disenfranchised from deciding community bans? -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 03:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

You really don't understand Wikipedia at all do you. The bans are only as good as how right they are for the encyclopedia. If someone should be banned, it doesn't need to be ratified by some quorum of franchised voters. This is just a page on Wikipedia where people discuss bans. It can be done anywhere. There is no "franchise", there is no "community", there is just a bunch of people working on building an encyclopedia. —Centrx→talk • 04:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Centrx, I am one of those saying that this is a page on Wikipedia where people discuss bans; that this is in fact a declared purpose of the page, "a forum for the discussion of

WP:ANI have held such discussions -- but they now tend to refer such discussions here to reduce the clutter there. Against this was the claim that a community ban "is outside the scope of the CN", i.e. should not be held here at all, upon which basis the reaffirmation of a ban was deleted -- which would make this "just a page on Wikipedia where people cannot discuss bans". Of those two positions, how does holding the former demonstrate "not understanding Wikipedia at all"? -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 04:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, this was a) proposed for no reason at all; b) had already been discussed and rejected several times before; and c) was about a user actively working against Wikipedia. That means it is currently outside the scope of any page on Wikipedia, and this page is just be the latest and least authoritative in a list of a forum shopping. —Centrx→talk • 04:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

""As far as I can tell, this was a) proposed for no reason at all"... -- See Wikipedia:Requests for Arbitration#Statement by Durova: "Here's a delicate procedural suggestion: Mr. Brandt's statement expresses a wish to have his status clarified (blocked or banned). Clarification could be accomplished through a formal community ban discussion at

Wikipedia:List of banned users (under "Community"). Community bans must be supported by a strong consensus."

The discussion showed that consensus, fulfilling the policy requirement, leaving no point of attack open to claims that Brandt was not "really" community-banned.

"b) had already been discussed and rejected several times before"... -- if consensus support for a community ban truly "had already been discussed and rejected several times before", then it could be argued that under current policy he wasn't "really" community-banned. However, I'd want to see (and check) citations before believing that the community rejected this ban.

"and c) was about a user actively working against Wikipedia." -- making it all the more important that the ban be fortified, reinforced, and unassailable.

"That means it is currently outside the scope of any page on Wikipedia"... -- The policy quoted above points specifically to WP:CN as the page to seek "a consensus of community support for the block" in the case of community bans. That might be "outside the scope" of any other page in Wikipedia, but it is clearly within the scope of WP:CN.

"and this page is just be the latest and least authoritative in a list of a forum shopping." This page is just be the page designated by policy to express consensus of community support for a community ban. If you are just be unhappy with policy, you are just be welcome to propose changing it. Arguing that policy and consensus are just be ignorable by anyone who wants to, however, is just be shooting ourselves in the foot the next time we try to enforce policy or consensus on anyone else who likewise is just be ignoring it. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 16:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

However, if the community wanted to, they would have the option? Navou ^banter 03:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

If not a single admin would lift the ban, then there is not community consensus to do it. —Centrx→talk • 03:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Please don't resort to vague meaningless word flappings like "empowering the community". This isn't a political speech. Do you have any reason to think that a person who has made it his business to make the lives of certain Wikipedians a living hell and who seeks to destroy Wikipedia should be unbanned? —Centrx→talk • 03:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The community consensus was read as clear to reaffirm the community ban. This reading was deleted and the matter of community bans declared "outside the scope" of the community sanction noticeboard. How do you interpret advocating community voice as declaring the person "should be unbanned?" -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 03:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not community consensus was to uphold the ban or not is irrelevant. The

Community sanction noticeboard was the wrong place to discuss such things in the first place.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, that pretty much negates the raison d'être of the

community bans"... -- which makes it exactly the right place to discuss such things. Where is your basis to overrule that? -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 04:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

My reference to WP:CN being "the wrong place to discuss such things in the first place" solely refers to discussing the ban on Daniel Brandt for the third time. Not on all bans that were ever made.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Accepted. In future, that might be expressed more clearly by saying "the wrong place to discuss this particular ban in the first place", rather than "the wrong place to discuss such things in the first place" -- since "such things" plural might be taken as referring to community bans in general. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 04:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I am just responding to these comments here. If no one thought the ban should be undone, then it doesn't make much difference that it was removed. —Centrx→talk • 03:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it makes a lot of difference that the

community bans", has been unlaterally declared "the wrong place to discuss such things in the first place" -- as the basis for reverting a consensus reading that affirmed a ban. On that basis, now any admin can ignore any ban enacted here, because it was "outside the scope" of this board. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 04:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Any admin can ignore any ban discussed here anyway. If these bans make sense, there is no good reason why someone would unban, based on the merits. Conversely, a ban discussion conducted elsewhere is just as valid as any discussed here, insofar as it is based on good reasons. —Centrx→talk • 04:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Aren't admins expected to uphold consensus, uphold policy? Isn't admin "power" granted, and policy itself determined, by consensus (wherever Jimbo and the Board and the legal counsel have not ruled from the top)? If "a ban discussion conducted elsewhere is just as valid as any discussed here", does that mean it can equally be ignored by any admin? And what of any other consensus decision? Or policy? -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 04:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

If someone was banned after some thread on this page or anywhere else without good reason, that is not on the side of policy or consensus. The only difference between this page and some other random place is that here allegedly the full case is being presented, whereas if someone is banned without reference to this page it would require some investigation and asking questions. We could presume that good decisions are being made here, but the fact that the page is filled with me-too votes does not suggest that to be necessarily the case. Any other consensus decision is likewise either discussed somewhere or is longstanding, and as always we are left to our own good judgement. The same is true of "policy". All of it can be ignored, and is ignored by 95% of the people who write Wikipedia. All anyone needs to know is that this is a neutral, verifiable encyclopedia; all they need for that is to have a basic understanding of what an encyclopedia is. Certainly some people don't appear to have that and they can be directed to, or even bonked over the head with, policy pages. Also, for any particular thing someone might want to know, e.g., what the collective wisdom is for blogs as sources, or whether IPs should be blocked indefinitely and why not, but these are not statutes or case law. This Daniel Brandt thing here was simply pointless and had nothing whatsoever to do with building an encyclopedia. He was not going to be unbanned, and even in some hypothetical world where he could have been unbanned, he was not going to contribute to the encyclopedia after being unbanned. There is no issue of justice here or of convincing someone of the futility of his efforts; his efforts are no more or less futile than they were before, and a procedural vote here is not justice even if Wikipedia were a court of law. Nothing good was going to come out of this; the bad of it was to encourage some of the mindless formalisms that keep springing up with new users, giving the wrong impression of what a community ban is and how Wikipedia works, and generally just being a waste of time for anyone who commented there. If Daniel Brandt knows about this here, I would not doubt that he is laughing at how much time people are willing to waste in order to go through the motions of a meaningless act. The only reason I am writing this is to hope that you and others will be convinced of the inanity of it. —Centrx→talk • 05:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

"Certainly some people don't appear to have that and they can be directed to, or even bonked over the head with, policy pages." Then what would have been wrong with leaving the CN ban consensus intact and undeleted, as the single document that just such people "can be directed to, or even bonked over the head with"? -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 06:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Because the people you bonk over the head with policy pages are usually obstreperous newbies, not the administrators who might unblock Daniel Brandt. Regardless, there were several other more effective discussions about the ban that people can be directed to. —Centrx→talk • 00:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Over at

WT:BAN the case of WP:RFARB/Nathanrdotcom was summarized: "a single administrator unblocked an account that almost certainly would not have been unbanned at a consensus discussion", to which Dmcdevit commented "an example of a bad move by an administrator, acting against the community's wishes" -- which raises the question "How do you know whether he acted for or against the community's wishes?" Do you get to say? Do I get to say? If we disagree, who speaks for the community? Why can't the community speak for itself? It should be able to. This page allows "the community's wishes" to be expressed directly, with as many of the community who want to participate participating. Without such an open forum, how could anyone ever really know what "the community's wishes" are? -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 02:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no administrator on Wikipedia who would even think of unblocking or unbanning Daniel Brandt. The actions that led to his ban are completely outside the scope of discussing whether or not we should "uphold or lift the ban". He is only on Wikipedia because he wants his name gone from Google searches, and he has gone through two years of disruption under multiple accounts and on his own website (WikipediaWatch.com) to try and bring down his page and list the offline names of Wikipedians who wrong him.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Um, no. Ryulong and Centrx are absolutely right here. There's a time and a place for glittering generalities about the community, the encyclopedia, and everything, and then there's the real world where people get hurt and reputations are at stake. This is the latter. Please be sensible. Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 03:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Quite. ++Lar: t/c 03:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

In the real world, the consensus on community sanction noticeboard reaffirmed Brandt's community ban. The argument against the community having any voice in that decision seems to be based on some alternative history in which the community declared, or might conceivably someday declare, that he "should be unbanned". Apparently the community isn't trusted. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 03:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry, you're not getting it. That the "community" (by which we mean the small subset that chooses to wander by here) took the matter into consideration implies that the reverse case was a possibility. Otherwise all this debate and discussion is just so much hot air. The community is represented in matters of this weight by the Arbitration Committee, which already rejected the appeal. Mackensen (talk) 03:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I think I understand now what Mack is saying. The last sentence is important. I am obtuse at times. Navou ^banter 03:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

"The community is represented in matters of this weight by the Arbitration Committee"... An ArbCom ban is distinct from a community ban. See

WP:BAN#Community ban; the latter points to WP:CN as the page to seek "a consensus of community support for the block" in the case of community bans. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 16:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

What I do not trust is the idea that this vague notion of "community" is represented by quickpolling on this noticeboard. What I do not trust is the fact that someone was daft enough to propose a community unbanning solely on meaningless procedural grounds and despite not thinking it should actually be done. —Centrx→talk • 03:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

"the fact that someone was daft enough to propose a community unbanning" -- where and when? On the contrary, the proposal was to formally reaffirm the ban in order to leave not even an arguable doubt that Brandt was covered under both the old and the new meanings of "community ban". In deleting that consensus reading, these editors have negated that reaffirmation. In so doing, they have flatly denied the clearly stated function of this board, "a forum for the discussion of

community bans". -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 04:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

There was no need to reafirm anything. That's the problem here.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I think I see the locus of the dispute here. Ben is arguing about process, Ryulong is arguing about practicality. You two are debating about two different things. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 04:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Not exactly. The object of the exercise, as I saw it, was to remove any "leg to stand on" for Brandt to argue -- to any listener in any forum, on- or off-wiki -- that there was any definition of "community ban", old or new, under which he was not covered by one. By reaffirming the old-style community ban (no admin will unblock), under the new definition (consensus decision), this noticeboard closed the last door tightly in Brandt's face. Deleting that consensus reaffirmation allows Brandt that thin reed to clutch. There was no need to do so, and it was counterproductive. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 04:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

There was no leg to stand on in the first place. No one has ever unbanned him. In the future, if someone were to decide to unban him, then the thread on the noticeboard would be worthless. It contains no new information just a bunch of meaningless votes; all the relevant information is elsewhere. —Centrx→talk • 04:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Not worthless: it had evidentiary value as a recorded community discussion and consensus decision, citable, linkable, printable-on-paper-and-wavable-in-the-face, against any assertion (on- or off-wiki) that Brandt isn't duly banned. The admin boards and ArbCom routinely ask for diffs to establish much smaller factual claims. However little worth you think this consensus reading had, what worth did deleting it have? What worth was there in dissing the entire process? -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 05:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

We don't need any of that. It's not entirely necessary to link and confirm every ban listed in WP:BAN. Especially these quickpolls. Some bans went along the line of "This has gotten ridiculous, I have indefinitely blocked X for this" followed by "I endorse the block" and a tagging of {{

banned}}. Daniel Brandt is in this case.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

"It's not entirely necessary to link and confirm every ban listed in WP:BAN." The reason I've spent so much time trying to do exactly that, and asking others for help in doing that, is to bring

WP:BLP standards, since these are living people.

But even leaving "every ban" aside -- because most bans aren't fought so tenaciously -- this particular case involves someone vocal, determined, and apparently litigious, which makes "linking and confirming" (and dotting every "i" and crossing every "t") seem like a basic prudent precaution. Throwing caution, and supporting documentation, to the winds may seem perfectly safe here, among a sympathetic group of editors... but in some future and much less friendly setting we may all have cause to regret it. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 05:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not necessary to have a discussion for the sake of having a linkable discussion. That's what I meant.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

That's what I took you to mean by "We don't need any of that." If you're right -- and I very much hope you are, since now we don't have that consensus reading archived, thank you -- then what harm would it have done to have it anyway, both belt and braces (suspenders)? None. And what advantage did deleting it give us? None.

And what if, later on, having that little old reaffirmation might have made a difference after all? It might have helped; I don't see how it could have hurt. But what's the benefit-over-risk of its deletion? On what corner of the risk grid does deleting it become worth even the effort to do so? -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 06:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Any future and less friendly setting could just disregard this poll here, especially since they already would be disregarding all the other discussions on the subject. This poll makes no difference. Again, there is no case law and there is no binding precedent. Regardless, that's not going to happen and ignores the actual power structure of Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation. —Centrx→talk • 05:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

"that's not going to happen" -- kindly return to Wikipedia the crystal ball it has been missing all these years.

"ignores the actual power structure of Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation" -- that "actual power structure" applies only within Wikipedia and (in the case of the WMF) the other WMF projects. The quarrel already extends outside this context; Brandt is already addressing outside opinions. Offering them one "concise" link to a formal community ban might be sufficient rebuttal; pointing them toward (broad sweeping gesture) "all the other discussions on the subject" might get the same enthusiastic reception that "long diatribes" receive on

WP:AN. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 06:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

"that's not going to happen" -- Daniel Brandt has now been unblocked, see WP:CN#Unblocking of Daniel Brandt. Never mind about that crystal ball, it seems to be defective anyway. -- Ben TALK/_HIST 21:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

But you said your vote was supposed to prevent that from happening? —Centrx→talk • 21:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

What vote? I didn't vote. Who ever voted? If you're referring to anything else, like a consensus decision, point to the archive of it. Ohhh, that was deleted instead of archived, wasn't it? Too bad. Complain to the deleter. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 21:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

It's in the archive, at

Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard/Archive7#Daniel Brandt, and regardless it is in the page history; the only real advantage of copy-paste archives is that it is searchable in a search engine. And it does look like a bunch of people voting, without any discussion. —Centrx→talk • 00:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The archive version you linked to is closed with the remark "this issue is outside the scope of the CN" -- what's that supposed to "prevent"? -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 02:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

You actually think the vote would have been at all relevant if that statement weren't there? —Centrx→talk • 03:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

We'll never know, will we, what might have happened if the consensus declaration had been archived instead of deleted, so it was there for a search to find -- since that isn't what got archived for the record, and from surface appearances never happened at all. Why struggle to denounce as "irrelevant" a declaration that got deleted to prevent it from having any relevance? -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 12:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not familiar with the Brandt case, and I did not read the thread that deeply. So I am not advocating a position regarding that particular thread (Brandt). Perhaps I should have researched the case. I am only advocating in the context that CN should be a place where actions can be discussed. I apologize if it appeared different. I do not want to be interpreted as being political or or having an affinity for bureaucracy. My primary goal lies with the article proper, the encyclopedia. Navou ^banter 03:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's my take on this issue: just as the community noticeboard can giveth bans, so does the community noticeboard taketh away the bans. However, in the case of Daniel Brandt, doing so is absurd, given his actions here and off Wikipedia. The propriety of the discussion is fundamentally different from the absurdity of having such a discussion, and the distinction must be made. They are not correlated with one another. Just because it is insane to have such a discussion does not mean that such discussions do not belong here, but merely that such a discussion should not be occurring in the first place due to its absurdity. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 03:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Just for my knowledge, can someone link to the original RfARB so that I can go educate myself. I'm having difficulty finding it on my own. Thanks, Navou ^banter 04:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I think a cursory browsing of Daniel Brandt's contributions will suffice.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

There was an RfAr? I though he was initially indef-blocked for legal threats. Info can be found

here. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 04:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I assumed there was, if there was not, then I need to go browse the contents of the contribs, and review that link. Thanks for the info. Navou ^banter 04:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd just like to say that Ben has expressed the matter very clearly: the community ban discussion on Daniel Brandt was initiated primarily as a protective measure toward Wikipedians who might otherwise face a lawsuit for libel over a perceived distinction between banning and indefinite blocking. I had also made a blanket proposal in order to clarify such matters generally, that existing indefinite blocks from before October 2006 be mass-converted into community bans to clarify and standardize the status of community bans. The community banning process itself is a developing area of Wikipedia, but it doesn't help things for one or two editors to try to roll back half a year of progress. I have great respect for Centrx and Ryulong generally, and I think I see where they are coming from on this, so I'll offer assurance

I've reinstated all of the notices deleted by User:Tony Sidaway. I understand that this is long page but there is a process here. When discussions are finished (ie no more comments or withddrawal) they are closed with a template. Or if there's simply been no comment in the discussion for a few days its bot archived. Deleting is out of process. I'm sure this was just a mistake and note is intended to expalin my reinstatements. I asked user:Durova before I did this and she explained that even a non-admin can revert out of process edits. If notices need to be closed they just need to closed within process--Cailil ^talk 12:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

"Out of process edits"? There is no such thing. This is not a rules lawyering game. —Centrx→talk • 13:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Centrx if I'm wrong just revert, I'm not trying to wikilawyer or to be bureaucratic. I discussed this with Durova here. I wouldn't have done this if the notices had been closed and/or archived. I've never seen any non-vandal content simply removed from a discussion page like this - Tony may just have forgot to paste it into the archives and if that's all then we should close and/or archive the discussions that have ended.--Cailil ^talk 13:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I had a discussion with User:Cyde about this - they've cleared a few things up. It is still my position that discussions should be closed - as they are on other noticeboards - before they are removed or archived. I accept however when the discussion is just in the wrong place or is bad faith, or as Cyde put it, is about "bickering", that they should be removed, that makes perfect sense. I am against the removal of open discussions however. i also think some allowance for the uncertainty of this board, due to the MfD should made until that is resolved. Perhaps a suspension or temp withdrawal of some?--Cailil ^talk 18:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

At AN/I it seems that issues don't get closed, they simply disappear after 24 hours of inactivity, due to the action of the MiszaBot archiver. This acts as a form of triage, though it never guarantees full study of any issue. I believe there was some sentiment that this sanction noticeboard should work the same way. However that would not be my own preference. At

WP:COI/N there is obviously less traffic than some other boards, and those of us who often edit there have the luxury of seeing the issues wait around for thorough discussion. We even 'close' the issues, though some issues do get closed for inactivity. EdJohnston 21:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Could this retrofix also include restoring the consensus decision that was deleted from the Daniel Brandt discussion (twice) to the archived discussion? (history version with consensus summary) (

Tony's edits are a method of fixing this page should it be kept at the MfD I sent it to. Regardless of actions taken by the higher-ups following that discussion, it still stands that the topic it discussed (the Daniel Brandt thread) was well out of the scope that this noticeboard should have ever covered.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The scope that this noticeboard covers: "a forum for the discussion of

community bans". The topic of the Daniel Brandt thread: a community ban. Specifically, to end Brandt's wrangling about whether he was properly community-banned or merely indefblocked by answering "Yes, both ways." That way no Wikipedian need fear threats of lawsuit for referring to Brandt as "banned"; no matter what definition was used, no-admin-will-unblock or community-consensus-in-discussion, Brandt would fall under it. Now you may argue about whether such a precaution was necessary when dealing with such a determined and litigious complainant, but at least there was no way it could be harmful. However, the deletion of that outcome was clearly not necessary, and could be harmful, either by leaving Brandt that chance to wrangle, or by leaving Wikipedians fearful that their backs aren't covered on that issue, with a resulting "chilling effect". On top of undercutting the people who'd tried to protect Wikipedia, came slamming them as Brandt allies, by misrepresenting the discussion as an attempt to unban Brandt. Was that either assuming good faith or acting in good faith? -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 04:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Community bans are discussed, but Daniel Brandt was a unique entity among those who were banned without the need for a drive-by consensus to say "Yeah, let's keep him banned."—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Except he was threatening to sue on the fact that there was no such drive-by consensus, so it was libelous to call him banned. -Amarkov moo! 18:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

referencing this discussion

The above discussion is an excellent example of why this noticeboard is a net problem for Wikipedia. It attracts too much frivolous fluff. --Tony Sidaway 00:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

And ANI doesn't...? -Amarkov moo! 00:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

That too. --Tony Sidaway 00:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

So...shall we MfD ANI? Or perhaps maybe we should just figure frivolous fluff will happen, and if nothing else, hopefully this was a learning experience for the person making the request? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

• Folks, listen... the above discussion; not all users understand block and ban. I must assume that in the requesting editors mind, the request
  may not be frivolous. Requests will be misplaced, and mistakes made. Please see the archives for examples of successfully closed discussions. Thanks and best regards, Navou ^banter 01:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I noticed the close reason... Quite evidently the community does not support a ban at this time, I don't think the full community even supports this board, just something to think about. Close reasons should perhaps state "this board does not support the ban". I also don't see much attempt to resolve the issues raised up at the MFD. (I've looked at the talk page of this place).——

Need help? 03:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, this request is asking for a ban of an editor, which I feel is a failure to assume good faith. If you feel an editor has a problem in a certain area, open a

Need help? 03:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)