Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Allstarecho/Community sanction


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the discussion was Speedy Delete - the creator of the page no longer objects to deletion, no other users object to deletion, and the page resides in the userspace of the user requesting deletion. Prodego talk  04:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Allstarecho/Community sanction
Editing restrictions links my restriction to User:Allstarecho/Community sanction which was created by User:Ncmvocalist. As User:Allstarecho/Community sanction links to this diff, why can't Wikipedia:Editing restrictions link to it directly, cutting out the "middle man" and a page I didn't create or want in my own userspace? I'm requesting the page be deleted and the link at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions be changed to link to the official history diff. - ALLST✰R ▼ echo wuz here  07:12, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Noting of course that I did this and was reverted by Ncmvocalist, which is why it's now at Mfd. - ALLST✰R ▼ echo wuz here  07:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 *  Oppose deletion.  (see revised vote below) Editing restrictions, since it was created in 2008, has kept a log of nearly every community-imposed sanction. Since that time, it's been fairly standard practice for the sanction to be recorded in the userspace, the earliest examples being here and here. I'm not sure whether it is arbitrator or administrator  who was responsible for starting the trend, or what the intended rationale was (perhaps that the historical diffs tended to be too long to load). Although I don't know what the motivations are here [with Allstarecho], typically, sanctioned users don't (or won't want to) detail the sanction in their own userspace in the hope that people will forget about the sanction so that they may evade it. We have never afforded a sanctioned user the chance to choose how their sanction is logged. On weighing the relevant considerations and the wider interests of the project, I don't see any compelling reason to change standard practice now either. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And my reply is that this isn't policy. Just because no one has challenged this "practice" in the past, doesn't make it policy either. As for your poisoning the well statement about my motivations, that is simply false. The official diff link is perfectly suitable rather than a user having to come to my userspace and then click on the very same diff link when they could have just done it at the Editing restrictions page. The Editing restrictions page says everything this userpage says. It's redundant and makes no sense to have whatsoever. - ALLST✰R ▼ echo wuz here  07:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course, anyone is entitled to challenge practice, guidelines or policy in the correct forums. But if the only thing people needed to comply with around here is policy, then we'd have unmanageable chaos. Yet, you'd stated you would not comply with your sanction at the initial sanction discussion? The statement on motivations was about sanctioned users in general; sorry, it was not about your own motivations - which is why I said "I don't know what the motivations are here." I hope I've clarified that. Nevertheless, I still fail to see you giving a compelling reason to change standard practice. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Aside from the obvious redundancy of sending a user off one page, to another, just to get to a third page when they could instead be sent off of one page directly to the actual page they are seeking? Then I guess I have no other compelling reason to change such a redundant and useless standard practice. Saying I don't want it in my userspace isn't hardly compelling but it should count for something. WP:IDONTWANTTHAT isn't a policy is it? - ALLST✰R ▼ echo wuz here  08:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I really really really shouldn't be surprised that you call enforcement actions redundant and useless, given that you're the one who is unwillingly sanctioned to begin with. Yet.... Of course your want does count for something; rather than keep the sanction logged at that page if and when your sanction is lifted by the community, it would be deleted - but in my opinion, a more compelling reason is needed if it is to be deleted now. But seeing you admittedly have no other reason, other than presumably try for the sake of trying, I think we have nothing further to add. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I shouldn't have to have a "compelling" reason as it shouldn't have been done in the first place. That's compelling enough. And I'll let you have that pot-shot at me, but don't take a mile. - ALLST✰R ▼ echo wuz here  08:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The restrictions are to address an ongoing problem, and should be logged as appropriate to the situation. Attempts to wikilawyer above are absurd. As WP:NOT notes, Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are descriptive, not prescriptive. They represent an evolving community consensus for how to improve the encyclopedia and are not a code of law. Policies are recordings of our community practices so that we know what a reasonable snapshot of consensus is, but written policies can and do lag behind community practices at times. With a long standing process going back for quite a while, it seems to have done so here. -- M  ask?  08:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No one asked that the restrictions be undone or that there be no log of them. There's just no reason to have them logged at Editing restrictions and then at User:Allstarecho/Community sanction as well when Wikipedia:Editing restrictions#Placed by the Wikipedia community is perfectly suitable to be the only place. - ALLST✰R ▼ echo wuz here  10:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * On further consideration, the antagonism it generates is not useful. Delete. -- M  ask?  10:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: I see no policy or decent ruling why this information can't be kept in the Editing restrictions area, as it currently stands it's basically creating a somewhat redundant linking since the reasoning is stored on the ER table and I can't see a reason why we can't to add space to add additional links to get to the AN discussion about it on the table. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peachey88 (talk • contribs) 05:09, August 6, 2009
 * Delete the user space page is needlessly humiliating. The sanction should be recorded on the master list with a permanent link to the discussion where it was created. Editing restrictions was started by Kirill Lokshin and myself. Jehochman Talk 11:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I never expected that your rationale for doing so was to needlessly humiliate another user; I clearly need to reconsider my vote as it was severely misinformed. What you've outlined as ideal practice, is starkly different to how you, Jehochman, reinforced the practice of the sanction being recorded in the userspace first (compare the times and contents of & ). Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think somebody is confused, either you or me, so let me restate my position. The list Editing restrictions serves a highly valid purpose, allowing administrators to find all the editing restrictions that are currently in effect.  The page User:Allstarecho/Community sanction is unnecessary.  The information is already available at the other page.  If the user feel humiliated by the page being placed in his userspace, then we should delete it. Jehochman Talk 13:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Please explain the actions you took in the 2 diffs above, and why you thought it necessary to take them. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You need to stop and re-read what I wrote. I oppose the use of Scarlet Letters. I never created one. You seem to be confusing the list of sanctions, a valid enforcement practice, with the creation of Scarlet Letter pages. I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Editing restrictions to put an end to this practice. Jehochman Talk 13:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Take your own advice and please stop evading my simple question so that this does not go further. Please explain why you felt the need to create the page User:Whig/Community_sanction before and after you put the same details at Editing restrictions? Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not evading the question. You presented diffs. I looked at the first one and saw that it pointed to the editing restrictions page, so I thought you misunderstood the situation.  I vaguely remember the Whig situation.  I believe somebody advised me to create that page as a place to log any blocks under the sanction.  Note that we cannot log blocks at Editing restrictions.  At the time nobody suggested the page was a Scarlet Letter.  Now that ASE has complained, I realize that their concern takes precedence. Jehochman Talk 14:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * To concur with the above, it is useful, and efficient, but at the moment ASE feels (rightly or wrongly) like he's being piled on, and the easiest way to reduce drama, and make sure ASE knows he is valued in most areas, even if the community has serious concerns about his edits in others, is to remove this. Look, the bans logged, both here and now at arbcom. It's known, won't be forgotten, and thats the goal, not to piss off ASE as much as humanly possible. Let him delete it if that's his wish. -- M  ask?  21:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Using userspace for an involuntary Scarlet Letter when the material is easily available otherwise seems designed to rankle. I am certainly unlikely to agree with ASE on many issues, but this is one which I feel should be a discontinued practice indeed. Collect (talk) 11:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * We need to track the sanction, and the discussion that lead up to it. But it's not clear that an intermediate page in user space that basically serves as a double redirect is a good approach. merge the content of the page (which is basically one line, and one important link to a particular point in a particular page's history) to Editing restrictions in the appropriate section, then delete the page itself. Also, consider finding previous instances of similar pages and doing the same merge. Also see if we can delete the drama around this at the same time. ++Lar: t/c 16:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've already done the merge. Suggest closing this discussion under a speedy criteria that user requests deletion of page in own userspace. Jehochman Talk 17:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per CSD U1; there's clearly no "administrative need to retain the page" Erik9 (talk) 18:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Jehochman, Lar, Collect and Erik9.  Horologium  (talk) 18:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * On reflection, given the revelations regarding the precise amount of thought put into this when the practice was initiated, I've withdrawn my objection. Topic ban enforcement can already be recorded in the block log, and this should've been thought of much earlier. Had the user been placed on something like probation however, my vote would not have changed for obvious reasons. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.