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

Some discussion
On my watchlist. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 00:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Similarly. – Chacor 00:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I've added a bit, please feel free to edit/second-guess/slash away. IronDuke  01:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Template updates
I have edited the navbox template to add archives, and removed the header from the board. I have made a page at Administrators' noticeboard/CommunityHeader and transcluded it similar to what is done on the incidents noticeboard. Navou banter  / review me  04:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I moved it to Community noticeboard/Header. Picaroon 05:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

New shortcut - chaned the redir of WP:CN to here from its original target: Common knowledge. This keeps it in line with WP:AN and WP:BN, makes more sense as this is likely to be used widely and knowledge is not spelt with a N at the start. Viridae Talk 07:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's a good idea. Nearly everything that links to it refers to common knowledge. I picked CNB as the shortcut because that one only had several links, not dozens. Picaroon 01:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Archive service
I have placed werdna bot on the page, if you want the notice to go away, I think I can do that without doing away with the archiving. Thoughts? Navou banter  / review me  00:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I have changed the archive code from 5 to 3 days. Navou banter  / review me  01:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Community noticeboard
I may have missed some of this history of whatever discussion prompted this (I see none here), but this page seems a bit out of place. Wouldn't this be better at someplace like the Village Pump instead? Isn't this needlessly fragmenting things? IronGargoyle 02:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Possibly. See Administrators%27_noticeboard.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 07:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link. I shall review. IronGargoyle 16:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Cross posted: To be honest, I think I'd rather move AN over CN; from my perspective, splitting the discussion like this seems more confusing than anything. It adds another page for me to watch over, fragments already-hectic discussion, and may add to the unfortunate perception that admins are more important than other users. Well-intentioned, I am very much sure, but a move/merge may be more useful than a split, is my take. – Luna Santin  (talk) 04:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

For reference, the WP:AN discussion was archived and the link to it is now: ++Lar: t/c 21:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Move posts?
I don't mind having a new specialized noticeboard, but it will only be productive if we move inappropriate posts to the forum where they actually belong. Already the Community Board is picking up policy-related discussions that arguably belong on WP:VPP or WP:VPR. Otherwise I'm afraid we'll just confuse matters.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  16:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Sigh...
It states quite clearly at the top of the page:

While comments from all editors are welcome, please note that "voting" won't be taking place, including on proposed community bans. Ejecting an editor from the community does not rest solely on simple majorities, or even supermajorities.

Yet people appear to be voting on proposed community bans (such as CroDome's) as if it were an RfA or similar (i.e. bolding their opinion, !votes like "Support", etc). This is really dissappointing. I don't think that the Community Noticeboard should be used for everyone to pile on a disliked user.. whatever happened to consensus, discussion, the dispute resolution process? I know that this page is meant to be used for, amongst other things, such proposed bans, and it will attract a lot of disputes but this just feels wrong. --Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 23:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I apologize, I was not aware that bolding one's opinion meant 'voting'. However, each person that has 'voted' according to the definition, has supplied reasons behind their so-called 'vote'. I see nothing wrong with this. Those who make the final decision should in turn disregard the number of so-called 'votes' but take into account the arguments supporting them. Therefore, I see nothing wrong with the discussion regarding a community block for user CroDome. Maîtresse 23:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * There are a number of examples where a user has simply left a message along the lines of "Support, this user deserves a ban" and then left with no participation in the discussion. This is not working towards consensus and besides isn't fair on a user who has a ban proposed against them. Besides that, bans are meant to be used at the end of dispute resolution, not for a user who has not so much as been blocked! This is ridiculous and completely out of line with policy. Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 23:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the CroDome discussion, where users have supported their so-called 'votes'. Maîtresse 23:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * it is helpful to see the trend of discussion in a quick summary, but yes, there are other words to use the "support" or "oppose" ; individualized wording might differentiate this page from other processes.In terms of a ban, as I understand it what we would be doing is recommending, but i do not fully understand where that recommendation goes. DGG 23:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Then lets fix it... Should we edit the top of the page to state "opinions with no rationale will be discounted" or some wording? Thanks Navou  banter  / contribs  23:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Something along those lines sounds good. Maîtresse 23:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I have boldly made the change. Navou <font color="Blue">banter  / <font color="Green">contribs  00:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Argh!
Blasted semiprotection! Now I'll have to go to the ANI! 68.39.174.238 05:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Or register... MastCell 06:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * But it does bring up the question as to exactly why this page is semiprotected. I just checked through this page's entire edit history (it's not too long... yet) and I saw relatively little IP vandalism. Rather I saw quite a lot of legitimate discussion from IP accounts. Anon users are indeed still part of the community so I think they should be allowed to participate here. &mdash;Elipongo (Talk 15:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree completely. I think it's an absolute travesty when community discussion pages like this one and the villiage pumps are semi-protected.  ~  ONUnicorn (Talk problem solving 15:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Not at all. You abuse it, you lose it. ✎ <font color="#669966">Peter M Dodge (<font color="#669966">Talk to Me ) 18:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * But the people who are abusing it and the people who are losing it are not the same people. The people who abuse it (hopefully) lose their edit priveleges entierly by being blocked.  Those who suffer by having the page semi-protected are innocent users.  ~  ONUnicorn (Talk problem solving 18:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * And as I pointed out above, there was actually very little IP vandalism that actually happened; definitely less than ten such edits out of nearly a thousand legitimate ones for this page. That wouldn't warrant semi protection on an article much less here. &mdash;Elipongo (Talk 18:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Until Werdna stamps out per-page-blocks, semi-protection is the only available option. ✎ <font color="#669966">Peter M Dodge (<font color="#669966">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. Tito xd (?!?) 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. ✎ <font color="#669966">Peter M Dodge (<font color="#669966">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. --Conti|&#9993; 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. ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 02:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Templates for ban requests
This page is chaotic. We should create templates for community ban requests -- along the lines of afd2 and possibly even one like afd1 to notify the user in question -- to help keep things organized. --N Shar 23:55, 23 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. ---J.S  (T/C/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. Tito xd (?!?) 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.  <font color="Blue">Navou  <font color="Blue">banter  / <font color="Green">contribs  00:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't obfuscate consensus.
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.  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  11:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * This is why voting is evil. ✎ <font color="#669966">Peter M Dodge (<font color="#669966">Talk to Me ) 17:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It is only one of many reasons why. —Centrx→talk &bull; 18:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy vs. claims of editors in the community ban of User:GordonWatts
From Community_noticeboard, is this quote: Weighing up the above, it is clear to me that the community mood is that Gordon Watts should not edit Terry [sic] Schiavo articles directly, should not link or suggest links to his own sites, and should restrict himself to making a very small number of brief comments to Talk pages, of the order of one per day. If Gordin [sic] is not able to abide by this restriction then a ban will be sought, either through community processes or through ArbCom. Guy (Help!) 13:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I did not get any sleep last night because of a combination of overnight auto trouble and the sudden death of my cousin, Kitty Barnett, which I learned this morning. so I am quite preoccupied with other things, but I see this sudden reply, and the template says that: "Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page," so I shall comport and reply -much to the chagrin of some users, I am sure.

Reply:
 * "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, although Gordon did revert the person who reverted Zenger.." 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 Wikipedia policy. Observe: Wikipedia policy: WP:COI clearly says that "If you feel it necessary to make changes to Wikipedia articles despite a real or perceived conflict of interest, we strongly encourage you to submit content for community review on the article's talk page or file a Request for Comment to the wider community, and to let one or more trusted community members judge whether the material belongs in Wikipedia," not that I suggest links to my web papers very often. Also, Spam point 6 states that "If your product is truly relevant to an article, others will agree -- try the talk page. We usually recommend that editors 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 bothRequests_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 Community_noticeboard 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. &mdash;Elipongo (Talk 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. 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. <b style="color:#1874CD;">Leebo</b> <sup style="color:#B22222;">86 02:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I have initiated WP:RFAR action against you and the other editors involved in this recent ban action
I have initiated WP:RFAR action against you and the other editors involved in this recent ban action. Observe:

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Current_requests

--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 request for comment was undertaken, one wouldn't present that specific RfC as proof that dispute resolution had been tried). <b style="color:#1874CD;">Leebo</b> <sup style="color:#B22222;">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)

Logging long running sanctions for reference
see Wikipedia_talk:Community_sanction 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)

That figures...
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.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  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. High InBC (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.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  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. —— Eagle  101  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. High InBC (Need help? Ask me) 22:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, so let's do that!  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  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. Dmcdevit·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.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  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 Community_noticeboard, which was addressed as a simple request for comment and immediately turned into a severely misguided attempt at decision-making by vote. At present, whereas, I would hope, people attempting to vote on ANI are frequently corrected, it feels as if this was created with that in mind. Dmcdevit·t 05:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Analysis

 * 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.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  10:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your contention that Community Bans belong on WP:ANI Radiant!. Community bans are decided by the Community, not by a subset of admins, which is why this board was created, as a place for the community to discuss issues.  I agree that centralization is nice, but there are times it is damn near impossible to get a post in at WP:ANI without multiple edit conflicts.  As we seem to be doing away with more admin related pages (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)

I'm going to be bold and slightly refactor the below into its own subsection. Far be it from me to question the good faith or value of the below topic, but I would hate to see it derail, overwhelm, or stifle the above question.

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, because those decisions are up to the community rather than only administrators.  However, I agree with Radiant in that this noticeboard seems to have been rather badly thought-out.  Why wouldn't user conduct WP:RFCs suffice for allowing a broad-spectrum community input on community ban issues?  Or, for that matter, why should their being discussed on 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?  Mango juice 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.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  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 Community noticeboard/Header. Mango juice 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?  Mango juice talk 18:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Analysis as it pertains to GordonWatts
<div class="boilerplate metadata" style="background-color: #C7BEFA; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;">
 * The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. 


 * HEY, I have a question here: All those "other" posts below might be distracting to a "real" question.


 * (quoting asi523's request: "Most of all, I'd appreciate some clear guidance as to what noticeboard is used for what" quoting Radiant!'s response "Looking at the current posts, Community ban on Gordon Watts belongs on ANI.")  My reply/Question : Hey, you remember me! I'm the guy who added, like, the next-to-last segment on your quilt. Well done. Anyhow, small question here (especially as it touches me) -Does the community ban notice imposed by the admin in that matter notice belong on the ANI simply because it is an "incident" that happened -to notify the admins of the ban? -Or rather would an "incident" only be excitant if I violated this "ban?" That is, what is the definition of an "incident" as it applies here. Thanks in advance.--GordonWatts 11:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * the simple answer Gordon is "no you will not be able to dance around your community ban from the TS pages (and as it is clear is going to happen ARBCOM upholding that ban) by further wikilawyering based on the conversation on this debate page". --Fredrick day 11:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * If you don't know the answer, then please, Frederick, refrain from rude comments!!


 * You make things so complicated. It's a "yes" or "no" question. Either "incidents" include bans -or not. Manner, manners!--GordonWatts 11:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * In the latter case, if "incidents" don't include mere bans, then they would only include "violations of bans," so I'm asking a question -to educate myself on policy -and you should not be so rude! Now, do you wonder why I tell people to "chill out" sometimes? It is because of comments like yours, in which you are not as part of any solution -just a bunch of rude insults; You can do better, I know you can.--GordonWatts 11:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * refrain from rude comments!!' It's not a rude comment, it's a truthful one: that you cannot and never have been able to tell the difference is your problem, not anyone else's. --Calton | Talk 13:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Whether his statement is true or not is not the problem; I asked a question, and he wasted airtime with a soapbox reply -off-topic. So, the real question is this: If you two are so concerned about wiki lawyering, then I'LL ask YOU GUYS a question: What if I'm right on most or all of my claims? Would wiki lawyering then not be OK? And (follow-up question), if it's not the right approach to possible policy violations, then what is?--GordonWatts 13:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Gordon, no one is listening to you. The right approach is to try to not piss the entire world off by being an advocate for your cause after your cause has lost. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 13:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * While you have good intent and motives here, your logic fails on one point: My actions do not keep the few detractors from being "pissed," as you put it: They are angry at the world no matter whether I post or remain silent (trust me: I've done both, and they don't change -been there - done that - your plan did not work!).
 * PS: #1 - It is not "my" cause - it is all of our causes, as MANY (not just moi) are victimized by rogue admins -#2: The matter is far from losing; Time will tell -all so well. Oh, yeah, even WERE there a majority or "consensus" against me (there wasn't, not on most points under review), still, sometimes the majority is wrong. Remember that 7-letter word, called "slavery?" No, you'd rather forget -that majority can sometimes be wrong. Don't learn from history -go ahead, and plug your ears! History repeats...--GordonWatts 14:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The first rule of holes is "If you are in one, stop digging." Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 14:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, then why do so many on "your" side keep "digging?" (here and on the ArbCom board)--GordonWatts 14:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Reality check for Gordon:
 * Current word count at RfAr:
 * Musical Linguist - 1271 words (154% over the limit)
 * JzG - 768 words (53% over the limit)
 * Calton - 542 words (including this post) (8% over the limit)
 * GordonWatts - 3390 words (578% over the limit)


 * Not even close to comparable. The one who's halfway to the Earth's core and headed for China would be you, Gordon. --Calton | Talk 14:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

This is a page for discussing the community noticeboard itself, not yet another venue for seeking loopholes. I suggest moving any further responses to this thread to Gordon's talk page. Thanks. ChazBeckett 14:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * My post was a question to Radiant! about a comment HE (or she) made -unrelated to my appeal, and thus your suggestion is out of order. This board is not the right place for your opinions of my ArbCom place. Take your discussion to the proper board, please. If you persist in any further off-topic or insulting comments, you could end up on the business end of sanctions or a ban. Keep it up. Or, don't.--GordonWatts 14:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I could get banned for suggesting that a thread that's gone off-topic should be moved to your talk page? Wow. I don't really know how to respond to that. ChazBeckett 14:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what Gordon is trying to say, but his passive-aggression is not appropriate either. <b style="color:#1874CD;">Leebo</b> <sup style="color:#B22222;">86 14:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * What I'm saying is that I asked an ON-topic question, and Chaz just jumped in there and took up space with off-topic comments (which, quite frankly, were insulting, because they falsely suggested I was myself making off-topic comments about my ArbCom case -when -in fact -I was asking the purposed of the various pages. My question is legit, but if you don't know the answer to it, then don't waste all our time with off-topic blabber. That's not an impossible request, is it? Keep the comments on topic.--GordonWatts 14:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Gordon, you not only have no authority to threaten people with bans -- no matter how passive-aggressively you couch them -- you have not the slightest shred of credibility in getting anyone with any degree of authority to carry one out. You don't like how a discussion is going? Tough nuggies. --Calton | Talk 14:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Cool it Gordon. You took a broad statement by User:Radiant! about the purpose of this board and skewed it off into an off-topic thread about your proposed community ban.  WP:POT, I'd be a bit careful about bandying about threats of sanctions against another editor.--Isotope23 14:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.


 * 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.  Mango juice 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)

archive bot
I am going to build a bot to archive this notice board (will be listed at bot approvals for BAG action). Any objections? <font color="Blue">Navou <font color="Blue">banter  / <font color="Green">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. <font color="Blue">Navou <font color="Blue">banter  / <font color="Green">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)

Purpose of this board
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? <font color="Blue">Navou <font color="Blue">banter  / <font color="Green">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.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  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)    * <font size=-2> 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)

Header
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 WP:RFCs: I feel strongly about this. RFCs are designed to help resolve disputes better than unstructured discussions do. When a community ban is needed, it should be discussed, but we shouldn't be getting community input at the same time. Although this might turn out to be a kind of RfC type forum, it should not be encouraged, and people should be reminded that RFCs are an option. Mango juice talk 18:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I like your wording to the header. However, I disagree with the removal of the disclaimer. <font color="Blue">Navou  <font color="Blue">banter  / <font color="Green">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. :)  Mango juice 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? <font color="Blue">Navou  <font color="Blue">banter  / <font color="Green">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.  Mango juice talk 21:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to close Community noticeboard
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 Essay strawpoll, which clearly should have been handled as a request for comment from the start. Nothing here seems like it couldn't be handled somewhere else (e.g. Village pump, Administrator's noticeboard). I know some are worried that "Administrator's Noticeboard" is a turn-off to members of the community who are not administrators, but I wouldn't be surprised if the admin/non-admin ratio at this noticeboard was actually higher than at the administrator's noticeboard itself. I do not doubt that this noticeboard was created in good faith and with the best of intentions, but I feel like it is an experiment that has failed. The discussion above regarding the purpose of the board is a perfect example. Unless anyone has any evidence that this board is effective at this unique location, I propose this board be marked as a rejected proposal/board/whatever and kept as an archive. I'm not sure if the talk page is the best location for this discussion. Perhaps a MfD would be the best outlet. It obviously shouldn't be deleted though. Any thoughts? IronGargoyle 00:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * 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, —<font color="#555">bbatsell  <font color="#C46100" size="1">¿? <font color="#2C9191" size="3">✍  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 &bull; 01:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Durova, who is an admin, created this noticeboard. And she's not exactly scared of commenting on AN. --210<font color="#0000C0" face="Comic Sans MS">physicq  (<font color="#0000C0">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" . —Centrx→talk &bull; 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. —<font color="#555">bbatsell  <font color="#C46100" size="1">¿? <font color="#2C9191" size="3">✍  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 &bull; 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.  —<font color="#555">bbatsell  <font color="#C46100" size="1">¿?  <font color="#2C9191" size="3">✍  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 &bull; 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: here, here and here). There is a bunch more marginal hodgepodge that may belong on wikiprojects, the village pump or another noticeboard. Any noticeboard is going to have things posted incorrectly, but a board with an ill-defined purpose is going to have lots of misposts, which waste time and effort. On the subject of community bans (which were the community noticeboard's initial purpose, I think something as serious as a community ban deserves to be posted at a more serious-sounding location. If the situation rises to the level that warrants a ban being administered, people will post it on one of the administrator's boards. We don't need to be worried with "scaring away" users. A ban requires an administrator's intervention anyway. Having a low-readership community board where people feel more free to request community bans I fear will only facilitate personal attacks, trolling, wiki-lynchings and rushes to judgment (e.g. the Essjay straw poll). Best, IronGargoyle 02:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

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 &bull; 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) 〈 RED VEЯS 〉 20:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * 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.  Neil   (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 Administrators' noticeboard to Administrative noticeboard right away. 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. Neil   (not Proto ►)  12:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

A second clarification
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)

Suspended
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?  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  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 Community bans noticeboard? -- Ghirla <sup style="color:#C98726;">-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. 13:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No it wasn't, he reverted my edit while I was typing in the protection summary.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  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.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  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.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  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)

thanks for this
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)

"Unclear" tag?
I proposed the board to discuss community actions for two reasons: the above mentioned community ban discussions and Community enforced mediation, which had garnered Jimbo's support and the support of several arbitrators. That proposal is ready to go into a three month experimental phase. The only reason I haven't taken that step already is because, as the originator of the proposal, I don't want to create the appearance of impropriety by taking off the proposal tag myself.

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 WP:AN and WP:ANI archives when I needed to cite past examples and it's ridiculously inefficient to store those decisions that way.

So if you want to enhance this board's purpose, set WP:CEM into motion. Durova Charge! 15:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * 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. <font color="Blue">Navou  <font color="Blue">banter  / <font color="Green">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. <font color="Blue">Navou  <font color="Blue">banter  / <font color="Green">contribs  20:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

When this board first opened I started threads both here and at WP:AN requesting discussion and improvement for the header. Nobody paid attention. Finally I dug in and did something myself. It wasn't perfect, but frankly the way this whole situation has been unfolding has me quite disappointed because those threads I started got ignored, then people tried rash and unilateral action because the community hadn't addressed those issues in an appropriate manner.

There's a similar propose discussion...ignore...fester... dynamic happening again at this board, at WP:RFAR, and Wikipedia talk:Banning policy: developing precedents and needed refinements aren't getting discussed and written into WP:BAN and WP:DE the way they ought to be. Two proproposed cases now before the committee seek to appeal their community bans in part because the community banned editors were already indef blocked when the community ban discussion opened and weren't notified while the relevant ban discussion was ongoing. Hence, they were effectively denied the means of defense. Yet the current policy language actually instructs sysops to ban first and ask questions later. We ought to address these matters on the community level because one of those requests for arbitration is on the verge of acceptance and if the community abandons its collective obligation to discuss and refine procedures in a timely and appropriate manner the Committee might make those decisions for us. Yet no one has made a topical response to my two threads on the subject - and the thread I initiated to this noticeboard got deleted without making it into the archives. Neither the policy nor the guideline has been updated to reflect this important precedent that establishes the community's right to topic ban or to reflect other valid concerns are showing up at ArbCom's doorstep. Community banning was meant to lighten their workload, not add to it.

If it seems like I'm getting testy about this, I am. I've been thinking far enough ahead to ask the arbitration clerks to archive rejected community ban discussions, and doing more than my share to initiate discussion in a timely manner, yet it's my userpage that gets vandalized repeatedly because a disgruntled editor chooses target me after the community sticks its head in the sand while I do my best to raise these issues. At this point I'm tempted per WP:BOLD to update the policy myself. I can reasonably argue that discussion has been open long enough and no one has disagreed. Yet instead of topical discussion the knee jerk action - in the embarrassing WP:PAIN and WP:RFI tradition - is blame the noticeboard. This is not the way to handle things. Durova Charge! 20:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 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:  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 <sup style="color:purple;">(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 WP:BAN and WP:DE. I'll express the proposed points in bullet form for discussion. The changes below would go into the banning policy unless noted otherwise. Durova Charge! 13:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 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).


 * 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&mdash;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.&mdash;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.  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 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)

Purpose
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? <font color="Blue">Navou <font color="Blue">banter  / <font color="Green">contribs  20:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Rename
Additionally, are there any objections to the moving if this project page to Community sanctions noticeboard? <font color="Blue">Navou <font color="Blue">banter  / <font color="Green">contribs  20:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 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. <font color="Blue">Navou <font color="Blue">banter  / <font color="Green">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.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  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 <sup style="color:#C98726;">-трёп-  07:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * How about 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.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  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:VPA, WP:AN, or 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.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  15:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * How about "Community Discussions" (err... WP:CENT) or "Requests for community input"? (Errr.. WP:RFC) Wait a sec... how is this board not redundant? ---J.S  (T/C/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.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  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? <font color="Blue">Navou <font color="Blue">banter  / <font color="Green">contribs  18:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Go for it.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  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? --<font color="#330066">`/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.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  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. --<font color="#330066">`/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.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  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"? --<font color="#330066">`/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).  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  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".) --<font color="#330066">`/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.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  16:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The point

 * I'm confused about the point of this, as opposed to AN or AN/I. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(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. --<font color="#330066">`/aksha 12:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm still not convinced either that this board isn't redundant.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  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.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  14:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Using Template:Usercheck
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: &lt;p align=center>&#123;&#123;usercheck&#124;1=username&#125;&#125;&lt;/p> &emsp; May I suggest this as possibly helpful? -- Ben &ensp; TALK/HIST 00:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep, thanks. Addhoc 18:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the header
There is a discussion underway regarding the contents of the header here. All are encouraged to participate. <font color="Blue">Navou <font color="Blue">banter  / <font color="Green">contribs  16:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Archiving
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? <font color="Blue">Navou <font color="Blue">banter  / <font color="Green">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. <font color="Blue">Navou  <font color="Blue">banter  / <font color="Green">contribs  18:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much. Cheers,  Durova Charge! 21:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Close template
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? <font color="Blue">Navou <font color="Blue">banter  / <font color="Green">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. --<font color="#330066">`/aksha 08:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps current is adequate then. I just don't like the color I reckon. <font color="Blue">Navou <font color="Blue">banter  / <font color="Green">contribs  05:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Navbox and Archives
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. <font color="Blue">Navou <font color="Blue">banter  / <font color="Green">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)

Ban library
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. —210<font color="#0000C0" face="Comic Sans MS">physicq  (<font color="#0000C0">c ) 03:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC) — PSUMark2006   talk  |  contribs  04:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I see that it is now unneeded. I have deleted my page. —210<font color="#0000C0" face="Comic Sans MS">physicq  (<font color="#0000C0">c ) 04:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * But please feel free (and welcome!) to add your efforts to List of banned users. I've been finding and listing banned users who weren't already on the page, with links to Arbcom decisions or other discussions, Long term abuse sections and subpages, etc. Just today I finished going through the five archive pages of the relatively new Community [sanction] noticeboard. Still ahead: the hundreds of archive pages for WP:AN and WP:ANI. Oh boy, would some help be nice!
 * By the way, I've updated the vandal-s template (used to list these entries) with a span-id that makes each username its own anchor, so anyone can cite individual entries like WP:BANNED or WP:BANNED. 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 or even while that entry's still on this page, --  Ben &ensp; 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. —210<font color="#0000C0" face="Comic Sans MS">physicq  (<font color="#0000C0">c ) 05:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Community-imposed personal attack parole
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)<font color="Blue">Navou  <font color="Blue">banter  / <font color="Green">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. <font color="Blue">Navou  <font color="Blue">banter  / <font color="Green">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. <font color="Blue">Navou  <font color="Blue">banter  / <font color="Green">contribs  16:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This all seems to fall under the umbrella of Disruptive editing. Either way, I strongly support the idea of archiving and updating the relevant policies and guidelines to reflect developments here at this board and at 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)

This is not a vote
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.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  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. Max S em 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.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  10:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Rename, part 2
How about "Community action noticeboard" or "Community issues noticeboard" instead of "sanction"? As it is, this board is really just warmed over WP:PAIN. The original idea was that it would be somewhere that a non-admin would feel more comfortable raising an issue of any kind, not just asking for a block/ban. But all it is now is PAIN revisited. --BigDT 05:59, 1 April 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.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  09:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know if I can handle another rename. :P <font color="Blue">Navou <font color="Blue">banter  / <font color="Green">contribs  12:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * As the editor who proposed this noticeboard I'll clarify the original idea: WP:CEM was in proposal stage and needed a venue for community input. Community ban discussions had been taking place at both WP:AN and WP:ANI - two of the site's highest traffic noticeboards - which resulted in chaotic archiving and discouraged non-admins from participating.  It made sense to open a noticeboard for those purposes.  This has never been intended as a place to post any ol' thing (check the archives for how quickly such threads got referred elsewhere).  The 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)

Awards available post-siteban
For several months I've had a standing offer to any editor who gets sanctioned at arbitration (short of sitebanning) that I'll award The Resilient Barnstar if they start a new article that gets highlighted at Template:Did you know. I've recently created a new set of personal user awards called Wikipedia's triple crown for editors who create a DYK entry plus become major contributors to a good article and to a piece of featured content. A special edition triple crown called the valiant return triple crown is available to editors who satisfy all three requirements after an arbitration sanction or a lifted siteban. I'll also extend the Resilient Barnstar offer to editors who return legitimately after a siteban gets lifted. If people are willing to come back from the edge, I'm willing to thank them. Durova Charge! 03:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

WT:RFC - another potential use for this noticeboard
(moved from WP:CN) <font color="Blue">Navou <font color="Blue">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)

Heads up
I urge editors who are regulars at this noticeboard to keep a watchful eye for potential attempts at misuse. At Requests_for_arbitration/Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram/Evidence 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 WP:RFAR immediately and request speedy closure of the community sanction thread. Durova Charge! 16:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Will do. Additionally should we preclude editors actually involved with the content dispute to propose community sanctions? <font color="Blue">Navou <font color="Blue">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:DE, by which means partisans to a dispute could comment and offer evidence but their opinions would not count toward the outcome of a community sanction proposal.  The consensus of uninvolved Wikipedians standard was part of that guideline for half a year until a month ago a group of editors changed it, citing concerns that frivolous accusations of involvement might succeed at excluding the input of impartial administrators who investigate a case.  The editors who implemented that change did make a good point when they pointed out the lack of a definition for what constitutes involvement.  The nearest parallel is at WP:BLOCK:


 * 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:BLOCK is gameable and on occasion editors have attempted to game it against me. My position is that this standard is more problematic with regard to blocks than with regard to community sanctions discussions because blocks are often the result of a single sysop's investigation while community sanctions are decided upon by many people, which renders the impact of a single exclusion a negligible factor.  So if anything, the banning policy ought to have been rewritten rather than 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)


 * This is a discussion, not a vote; this page isn't RfArb and it isn't RfA. I assume that any admin who closes a thread on this page knows better than to treat it as a straight up-and-down tally of votes.  The reasoning behind each person's comments should always be the most important consideration.


 * I would hope that any person who has a conflict of interest would have the good sense to declare it when they post in a discussion. Failing that, I would expect another editor to point out a conflict of interest if they saw one go unremarked.  Other participants will have the good sense to weigh evidence and opinion appropriately.


 * That said, I would also note that the noticeboard should not treat kindly editors who attempt to manipulate the process through excessive canvassing&mdash;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. <font color="Blue">Navou  <font color="Blue">banter  18:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Similarity to quickpolls
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 <font color="Blue">Navou  <font color="Blue">banter  17:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Quickpolls. See especially its history. &mdash;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? <font color="Blue">Navou <font color="Blue">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"? <font color="Blue">Navou <font color="Blue">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. <font color="#567E3A">CASCADIA <font color="#2F4F2F">Howl/<font color="#2F4F2F">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. <font color="Blue">Navou  <font color="Blue">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. <font color="#567E3A">CASCADIA <font color="#2F4F2F">Howl/<font color="#2F4F2F">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. —210<font color="#0000C0" face="Comic Sans MS">physicq  (<font color="#0000C0">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. <font color="Blue">Navou <font color="Blue">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. <font color="#567E3A">CASCADIA <font color="#2F4F2F">Howl/<font color="#2F4F2F">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. <font color="#567E3A">CASCADIA <font color="#2F4F2F">Howl/<font color="#2F4F2F">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. <font color="#567E3A">CASCADIA <font color="#2F4F2F">Howl/<font color="#2F4F2F">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 . <font color="#567E3A">CASCADIA <font color="#2F4F2F">Howl/<font color="#2F4F2F">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)

Comments moved from a ban proposal regarding "what is enough discussion to close?" (paraphrased, not direct quote)
This section needs more comments to close definitively <font color="Blue">Navou <font color="Blue">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 &ensp; 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. <font color="Blue">Navou  <font color="Blue">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 &ensp; 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?  <font color="Blue">Navou  <font color="Blue">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 &ensp; 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 &bull; 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 &ensp; TALK/HIST 06:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

If...
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, <font color="Blue">Navou <font color="Blue">banter  02:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Revert-then-discuss of previously undiscussed reversion
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 &ensp; 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? <font color="Blue">Navou  <font color="Blue">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)
 * " 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 &ensp; 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 community sanction noticeboard; if that is truly the case, all the community bans enacted by the noticeboard are invalid, and need to be taken off the list of banned users. But exactly when, where, and by whom, was the community disenfranchised from deciding community bans? -- Ben &ensp; 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 &bull; 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 community bans". Certainly it is not the only such page -- WP:AN and 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 &ensp; 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 &bull; 04:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * ""As far as I can tell, this was a) proposed for no reason at all"... -- See : "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 WP:CN without the Committee's involvement." The above suggestion is in accordance with Banning policy: "Administrators who block in these cases should be sure that there is a consensus of community support for the block, and should note the block on the Community sanction noticeboard as part of the review process. That it is a community ban should be noted in the block log, and the user should be listed on 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 &ensp; TALK/HIST 16:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * However, if the community wanted to, they would have the option? <font color="Blue">Navou <font color="Blue">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 &bull; 03:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Let me copy-paste something I put on Ben's user talk:

As a user who registered this January [to Ben], you have not been around long enough to realize why re-examining the ban on Daniel Brandt is completely out of the scope of the community sanction noticeboard. His ban is an indefinite block that no administrator, arbitrator, bureaucrat, steward, developer, etc. will ever lift. The fact that his ban appeal was rejected by the arbitration committee is because they realize these facts. The fact that he has performed legal threats and has been persistent in his efforts to be harassing to Wikipedians, publishing whatever real life data he can find and what not. That is why the discussion was closed, because the drive-by voting that is WP:CN is not the place to discuss the ban on Daniel Brandt, or other such individuals (Blu Aardvark, Gibraltarian, etc.)— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 03:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * "WP:CN is not the place"... -- Read Banning policy. -- Ben &ensp; TALK/HIST 16:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying, however, I must strongly disagree. I would that, consensus can change, and if the community would so desire to allow a banned user back, that CN is a venue to perform such action. As far as drive by voting, I think the current clerkish folk and the closing folk (and contributing editors for the most part) are doing a good job of judging drive by votes from discussion with rationale. I do not believe that moving sich discussions outside the scope of CN is empowering the community. I believe the more the community is empowered, it will be better for the project. <font color="Blue">Navou <font color="Blue">banter  03:24, 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 &bull; 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 &ensp; 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 sanction noticeboard. Might as well declare it "historical" and start removing all the bans it "enacted" from the list of community bans. ... except... on whose say-so? Based on what policy or other authority? The page header says "Welcome to the community sanction noticeboard, a forum for the discussion of community bans"... -- which makes it exactly the right place to discuss such things. Where is your basis to overrule that? -- Ben &ensp; 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 &ensp; 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 &bull; 03:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it makes a lot of difference that the community sanction noticeboard, "a forum for the discussion of 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 &ensp; 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 &bull; 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 &ensp; 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 &bull; 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 &ensp; 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 &bull; 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 &ensp; 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 &ensp; 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. <font color="Blue">Navou  <font color="Blue">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 and WP: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 &ensp; 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 &bull; 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 &ensp; 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. —210<font color="#0000C0" face="Comic Sans MS">physicq  (<font color="#0000C0">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 &ensp; 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 &bull; 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 &ensp; 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:BANNED closer to something vaguely approaching 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 &ensp; 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 &ensp; 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 &bull; 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 &ensp; TALK/HIST 06:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * "that's not going to happen" -- Daniel Brandt has now been, see WP:CN. Never mind about that crystal ball, it seems to be defective anyway. -- Ben &ensp; TALK/HIST 21:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * But you said your vote was supposed to prevent that from happening? —Centrx→talk &bull; 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 &ensp; TALK/HIST 21:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It's in the archive, at Community sanction noticeboard/Archive7, 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 &bull; 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 &ensp; 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 &bull; 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 &ensp; 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. <font color="Blue">Navou <font color="Blue">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. —210<font color="#0000C0" face="Comic Sans MS">physicq  (<font color="#0000C0">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, <font color="Blue">Navou <font color="Blue">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. —210<font color="#0000C0" face="Comic Sans MS">physicq  (<font color="#0000C0">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. <font color="Blue">Navou  <font color="Blue">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 WP:CSN is no quickpoll: people do get topic banned or sitebanned at this board. Those of us who are regulars here attempt to ensure that sanctions happen in a fair and equitable manner. Durova Charge! 02:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Reinstating discussion
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--<font color="grey" size="2">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 &bull; 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.--<font color="grey" size="2">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?--<font color="grey" size="2">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 ) (archived version without consensus summary) -- Ben &ensp; TALK/HIST 02:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 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 &ensp; 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)

Moved from WP:CN
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, <font color="Blue">Navou  <font color="Blue">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).——  Eagle 101 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 request for comment. If we think the problem is that users don't understand the difference between a block and a ban, then that should be in the page header. ——  Eagle 101 Need help? 03:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Editors who wish to comment on this board in general would do better to post their comments at the board's talk page. Durova Charge! 17:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I've updated the header to direct editors to other forums if they just want, say, some action taken about disruption by another editor. --Tony Sidaway 19:49, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the deletion of discussions
Discussion should really be archived, as opposed to removed. Regards, Navou 23:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd tend to say, hey, let's keep around the sillyassed ones that get closed as "What were you thinking?" very quickly. Hopefully, if someone comes along, about to post one in the same vein, and sees that, they'll get the point. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This is something I agree with. I have closed this discussion with some education, and I have placed the archive templates.  The bot will remove the discussion and archive it.  Additionally, there is a cliche about history repeating itself if we forget the past. Regards, Navou 23:13, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think this is a response to the "closing" of discussions. I undid them before, but it doesn't seem to have taken. This is a time for the people who think they are helping this page to take the community's current ambivalence toward it on board, and address concerns. This should not be a needless bureaucracy or a vote. Discussions in progress should not be closed at all, except under exceptional circumstances, like trolling or harassment (in which case they should be moved to the archive, not "closed" and left). Community discussions are not votes to be closed, certainly not by any one person adjudicating. Rather, there is a bot that archives threads automatically after they have gone 48 hours without discussion, and that convention should be used to ensure that truly dormant discussions, as inappropriate ones should be, are removed. On another note, this is the only place that regularly simply "closes" misplaced discussions, rather than moving them to where they should go and helping the confused user. This seems to be another symptom of overwrought bureaucracy. Dmcdevit·t 08:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * So discussions here should be open untill archived by the bot if I understand you correctly. I think the discussions should be closed with a summary of the consensus, it seems to make things easier.  What are your thoughts? Navou 13:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually the editors who've done everything possible to take down this board - from removing links to it from other noticeboards while MFD was ongoing to rewriting stable banning policy - might wish to take note that it still exists, and a significant percentage of Wikipedians see a useful purpose to it. If you'd like to stay around and see how this really works, you might be pleasantly surprised.  Durova Charge! 18:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Trying to label me as a such-and-such to discredit my opinion while failing to address my point is not helpful and does not add to this discussion. Dmcdevit·t 07:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Basically, yes. Asking someone to "close" a discussion sounds less community-like to me. It sounds like you either have admins or some other clerk-ish group closing, which is problematic in that you then have a restriction of the final decision to fewer people, or you have anyone closing, which is problematic for the obvious reasons of inexperienced editors making mistakes. Closing in general is problematic because it brings into play the closer's opinion (can they IAR it if the community is wrong?) and because it encourages headcounting by the closer. We already have a good enough metric of consensus on banning: if the discussion leads to an unblock, the ban is overturned and should be at arbitration, not CSN, for resolution. Dmcdevit·t 07:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you list some examples where closures were incorrectly applied via the archives? Navou 10:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, please archive discussions rather than delete them. I have no objection to early manual archiving if the thread is frivolous. Durova Charge! 06:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Community sanction noticeboard
Was there really a need for this, and if there was I do not like at all the idea of applying WP:SNOW to any conversation about a community ban, though in this case I don't even think the discussion was needed, as all socks are indeffed on sight if they are abusive socks. I've yet to see a decent conversation about a community ban on this page since the DRV. :S ——  Eagle 101 Need help? 08:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * In addition why the compelling need to make things "official"... this seems like a new "goal" for vandals and abusive sockers to attain. (WP:DENY) and all that. ——  Eagle 101 Need help? 08:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * There was no reason to make anything official, hence why the discussion was closed. WP:SNOW was not involved. Navou 13:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * And now we have something along the lines of votes for banning in the next section. See this, heck nobody even gave full details, nor investigated the reporter (something that really ought to be done, and is done in all ARBCOM cases if the reporter is part of the dispute). ——  Eagle 101 Need help? 18:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You are free to investigate the reporter and report your findings. Please note the top of the csn page, where in it is explained about how votes are not done, and bans/sanctions are discussed. Navou 18:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Right, but see in the last 2, (first one closed in 45 minutes) (second one closed in 2 hours). There was not enough time to do so, (yes I was working on it). This stuff could have happened on WP:AN, and had a better chance of the relevant research and things getting done then here, plus without all the users "endorsing". It is possible to comment without having to "endorse" or "not endorse", see my comments. ——  Eagle 101 Need help? 19:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) The editor, Megatron, applying common sense, and the way the board works, it was very unlikely that a ban would have occurred. Boulders was already banned, so it was noted and closed. Unneeded. And the remembered editor, whom was just closed, closed as a complex case where CN may not have been of much help, especially since an arbcom intervention has been requested. If you slam thru the archives of both the talk and the actual board, I think you will find the board works really well. With respect, Navou 01:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * At the very least we should not be speedy closing bans, as the current snafu on WP:CN shows that as time goes on more people get time to do some research, and some valid objections are raised. Please do note I'm really not sure anymore if a ban should or should not be done in that case, but it should in any case require more in depth investigation, and as many people from the community as possible. Frankly crossposting to the various other forums would likely be a good idea to achieve the goal of getting as many members of the community involved as possible in this kind of discussion. More people only improves the chance that all evidence is found. At a minimum these requests need to be open for several days before they are closed, otherwise these discussions can take place just fine on AN or ANI. Regards. ——  Eagle 101 Need help? 16:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Examples requested by Slim
Note this discussion where community sanctions were not effected due to the case requested by arbcom.

ban request deferred to arbcom.

Here is another. Very respectfully, Navou 01:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Following up on Navou's post, I was the editor who intervened at the latter thread and opened the request for Requests for arbitration/Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram. Discussions at this board normally close when an arbitration request opens.  Durova Charge! 02:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * They shouldn't close just because someone files an RfAr, otherwise people will do that in order to close the discussion. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 10:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I can see that Narouv has been asked above not to close discussions too. It really is very bad form. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 10:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that discussion should close if an arbitration request is accepted, but not just filed. If the arbitrators decide to hear a case, their decision there will overrule anything here anyway. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Agree with Seraphim, though I would add the community has the right to impose stiffer penalties than arbcom, though we may not lessen them, AFAIK. IronDuke  12:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not so sure if I agree with that, if arbcom puts an editor on probation, we really have no right to go over them (we elected them) and impose a ban, but at least the arbcom will see all the evidence in a somewhat ordered fashion, as opposed to the mish mash that we have on the board right now >.> Cheers! ——  Eagle 101 Need help? 16:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Seraphimblade, actually if an editor thinks that they have a better chance of getting all the evidence reviewed by arbcom, they should not be denied the chance or discouraged from asking arbcom. ——  Eagle 101 Need help? 16:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I've actually run into this problem with Navou before in a dispute he tried to mediate, and it is very bad form. He maybe overenthusiastic about process and closing discussions, but he means well, and he's taken on the task of monitoring this board and that should be commended. If I may suggest something, instead of closing discussions, why not come up with a template similar to the template being used on other noticeboards. It could be a header informing users a case has been referred to ArbCom, and people will still be able to comment or let it play out over there. I kind of feel like conversations should only be closed if conversation has actually become pointless. Let's leave things open, and they can just be archived like every other board instead of closed. AniMate 16:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm going to point out that there is no rushing *need* to speedy "close" or take action on a banning quickly, several days to a week should be provided to allow discussion and evidence digging. ——  Eagle 101 Need help? 19:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed, though I still think a template to notify people if an ArbCom case is opened is a good idea and a much better idea than closing discussion down. Closing down discussions is always so contentious and I've always wondered why someone thinks they have the right to do that if it's not on their own talkpage. Finally, if speedy action is needed, shouldn't that go to WP:AN/I instead? AniMate 19:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I would suppose, as far as not formally "closing" things, that might be a decent idea, I think the closed discussions are being modeled off of the various request for deletion processes and may not be suited to a noticeboard like this. ——  Eagle 101 Need help? 20:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The template probably is a good idea. Or even a bolded note at the top of the thread stating "This matter is being considered by the Arbitration Committee." Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I like Animate's idea. Its less testy. It seems there are a lot of objections to the closures, and I am not averse to a change in consensus, if the consensus is that we do not close discussions anymore except for the obvious trolling (not implying that I have observed any) and what not.  Thoughts?  (I'm not a process wonk, I promise :P ) Navou 23:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, since you agreed with me, I think your thoughts are dead on. AniMate 06:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd just suggest that we stop "closing" stuff, and do this new idea. I don't see any reason why we should hesitate to implant this new idea. ——  Eagle 101 Need help? 20:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If there are no objections, why don't we request a template with This matter is being considered by the Arbitration Committee per Seraphimblade's suggestion? Or someone here could make one. Regardless, I think its time to stop closing discussions, as this board is controversial enough. AniMate 02:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) I tend to agree with Animate. Although it has been acceptable and common practice to close discussions here, it seems to be no longer the case. I do however, think that certain discussions should close, eg, where there is no sanction requested, and trolling, etc. Will the template suffice, so that it does not close the discussion with a colored background? Navou 02:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think templates are necessary really. Just say "I'm closing this debate because..." and give your reason. I've closed the Palestine Remembered discussion because it was about to be considered by arbcom, and I've closed the one that Cool Cat raised because the guy he wanted banned (User:Ozgurgerilla) hasn't even ever been blocked.  I explained why and I surrounded the discussions by  and  .  This should be used liberally so as to discourage inappropriate or indiscriminate use of this noticeboard, as well as to close discussions where the arbitration committee has intervened. --Tony Sidaway 03:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * This discussion arose because Navou closed a discussion prematurely. Once the ArbCom has accepted a case, or where the discussion is clearly inappropriate, it's a different matter. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 06:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I do not think is was premature, acceptance by arbcom was imminent. Navou 11:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * CSN debates should always close when ArbCom has accepted the case or when acceptance is imminent. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think its in CSN's place to add or subtract from ArbCom rulings on a case. nadav 08:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It would be pointless to attempt to do so, ArbCom can overrule or modify community bans if they wish to do so. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

To add some background for editors who haven't been regulars at this board, the main thing early closures strive to avoid is another situation like Certified.Gangsta/Ideogram. Ideogram opened a community ban request on Certified.Gangsta last month and I quickly suspected (and then confirmed) that Ideogram had been canvassing for support of that proposal. So I opened the arbitration request and Navou closed the community ban proposal rather quickly. We don't want this forum to get abused to railroad anyone out of the project.

Ideally, early closures wouldn't be necessary: if the disruptive editing guideline returns to the form I've supported, in which editors who've been in conflict disputes can comment at community ban discussions but cannot play a deciding role in the outcome, then canvassing and early closures wouldn't be serious issues here.

Basically the editors who've had the most consistent involvement in this process have had to work around some changes that have been imposed over our objections. We've got an overall vision. Durova Charge! 19:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep and I'm still waiting for a decent use of this board since the MFD. ——  Eagle 101 Need help? 23:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Seaching for past cases
It is becoming increasingly difficult to browse banned users. I propose that a list should be provided linking to the individual cases in archives. -- Cat chi? 12:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * There should not be a problem with that. <font color="Blue">Navou <font color="Blue">banter  15:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * See List of banned users (WP:BANNED). Or are you talking about the CN archives specifically? --Akhilleus (talk) 17:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

One of the topics that got discussed at MFD was this noticeboard's archives. In general (and we've been through this before on this talk page) it's a good idea to archive all requests so that they can be referenced if a need arises later on. As I suggested at MFD, once the archives grow enough it would be a good idea to set up a table formatted index. That would be particularly useful to track partial sanctions such as topic bans or 1RR. Durova Charge! 17:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd like to have a short summary of every archived request on a single page. IN just one year there will be far too many archives to deal with. List of banned users is not helpful since I want to ONLY browse users banned by the "Community sanction noticeboard". Banned users tend to return exploiting our PP. -- Cat chi? 13:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Bear in mind that this board discusses partial sanctions such as topic bans in addition to full sitebans. Is your interest mainly in discussions that produced a ban of some sort?  The archives include other discussions.  Durova Charge! 18:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I think this is why it's important to leave a link on the userpage to the relivent discussion when someone is community banned. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 22:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes like the "banned by arncom" template. Such pages should be protected too to prevent the removal of the template or at least the archived case should be linked in the block log where it is accessible (a 1 sec block to put it in the block log may be a sane trick). -- Cat chi? 13:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Guys
(Moved from WP:CN) Navou 19:17, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Is indentation style edit-war worthy? Taemyr 02:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No; it is however extremely confusing. The editor who insists on inserting/removing blank lines everywhere while also rewriting the indentation style of previous commenters to fit his personal preferences does so at the cost of making the mediawiki diff generator unable to synchronize the edited text, so it ends up looking like he removed a whole bunch of comments. It ought to be obvious that the Right version of an ongoing discussion is the one that causes the smallest diff with earlier versions, such that it is easy to verify what has been added since a certain point in time. An editor who does such undiffable restructuring for no apparent purpose has no good reason to complain if somebody else reverts him. –Henning Makholm 12:59, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Zero1328 has raised the issue at Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines -- JHunterJ 13:46, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed. See also this earlier discussion on that page.  Dan Beale  14:27, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Some thoughts
I wondering if this process needs to have the ability to also lift a ban and place conditions on the editors upon their return, a probation type period. Gnangarra 14:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. I actually initiated such a discussion here.  It was unsuccessful, but I think the concept behind it was sound; if the community can agree to ban an editor they should be able to lift that ban and request that the individual agree to some restrictions in return.  I'd personally reserve this for review of community bans or indef blocks that have become de facto bans because no individual administrator is willing to unblock; Arbcom bans should require the banned individual to pursue remedy at Arbcom.--Isotope23 talk 14:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah only arbcom should be able to alter arbcom decisions. this process shoulld be able to alter its self. Gnangarra 08:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom
Would it help reduce friction if Arbcom endorsed the operation of this board? If that has happened already, can we cite the precedents somewhere so people will not make the mistake of thinking that this is a kangaroo court? - Jehochman Talk 18:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Arbcom enforces decisions, CN is for the community to come to a decision. We don't need arbcom to endorse consensus based blocks, they are already the defacto way of handling issues. Until  ( 1 == 2 )  18:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * See also: kangaroo court.  --Ideogram 18:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Concerning your conduct in this thread? Durova Charge! 20:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

If Jehochman's point is that the basis for this noticeboard is not set out clearly on the noticeboard, I agree. That basis is given at Banning policy. It is that a user has been blocked by an administrator, and no other administrator is willing to unblock that user, making the block a de facto ban. The role of this noticeboard is to demonstrate that there is a "consensus of community support for the block". This should all be set out clearly in the introduction to the noticeboard. Banno 21:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, the basis and process for implementing "topical bans" should be set out clearly. Banno 21:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, this board has been doing topic bans for half a year. ArbCom endorsed the concept of community topic bans here.  Inclusion at the policy level has been a source of some controversy because some editors oppose the existence of this board; one of the stronger arguments for keeping it (as opposed to wrapping it in with WP:AN and WP:ANI where community ban discussions used to take place) is the accessibility of archival reference.  A topic ban doesn't generate an automatic entry in a block log, so it facilitates enforcement to conduct those discussions in a dedicated area.  Actual process is straightforward: just express the range of the ban in the proposal and give reasons for it.  Responses weigh the merits.  Durova Charge! 00:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Just to be clear, I'm not questioning the validity of either this board or the process, but saying that niether is well explained here. Having implimented the odd community ban myself, I think this noticeboard is important.
 * Just curious, how many topic bans have actually been done? Is there no reason why we can't put those into their own special section? "active topic bans". Then it would not matter where the discussion was had. ——  Eagle 101 Need help? 01:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * They have their own special section... WP:CSN. Additionally, I'll oppose any listing, other than the banned users that already exists.  I'm more in favor of just keeping those discussions in the archives.  Respectfully, Navou banter 02:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * CS geek here. Why does it matter where the discussions are held if the results are the same?  Can't we create an index to the active cases and include it as a template into whichever pages people like to watch?   Can't we archive the cases in a way that's convenient for future investigations? I'd really like to overcome whatever objections people may have to the status quo so we can all work together against the bad actors.  - Jehochman  Talk 02:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll reply to that. And I commend you for attempting to make things easier for folks.  However, the fear I have with a listing, is that it (the extremely visible listing) will become a stigma to an editor who is the subject of a topical or less than site ban.  "Hey look at all those banned editors".  My hope is that any editor who is subject to editing restrictions can contribute in a positive manner.  I'm not saying we should obscure the sanctions, just that any dedicated listing will perhaps mar intact dignity.  I'm sure WP:BU can be formatted to accommodate this purpose.  I'll agree to that.  Anything beyond, I'll oppose for this reason.  Regards, Navou banter 02:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * One reason I originally proposed a separate board was because on several occasions I'd delved through old discussions at WP:AN and WP:ANI archives in order to locate a topic ban discussion when it needed to be referenced on a later occasion. That was a cumbersome endeavor, to say the least.  Although there's some utility to maintaining a list of the editors who are actually sitebanned, there can also be occasions to refer to a discussion that fails to result in a ban.  Unless there's some central location for these discussions it's very hard to reference precedents or analyze trends.
 * In the long run that's very important: Jimbo and ArbCom operate pretty much at capacity and have for a long time. When I joined up two years ago this site had 800,000 registered accounts.  That's over 5 million now and still growing.  So it makes sense to take a broader view of community sanctions than the sitebanned/not sitebanned dichotomy that a lot of Wikipedians still hold: the community relieves some of ArbCom's workload by doing simple topic bans.  Eventually that will probably expand to revert paroles and article paroles because the need for some of these measures will outpace any other solution.  When we reach the point where the site has 6 million articles and 20 million accounts, what else will we do?  One approach is to implement some robust yet flexible structures that can anticipate and accommodate that growth.  This is the best I've been able to come up with.  If anyone else has farsighted alternatives I'm all ears.  Durova Charge! 03:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Forgive me for asking basic questions. Durova wants separate archives to facilitate research.  Is that correct?  As I understand, Eagle 101 would like broader notice--bright daylight if you will--to ensure that nobody is railroaded by a small number of editors with a gripe. He'd be happier if these discussions resided at WP:AN.  I see merit in both views. Couldn't we create an index or digest of the active cases here and include that into WP:AN as a template?  That would provide broad notice, but we'd still have a separate archive for site and topic ban discussions. - Jehochman  Talk 03:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * A template to WP:AN sounds good to me. For the first several months of the disruptive editing guideline, the safeguard against railroading was that community ban consensus would be established by editors who were uninvolved in a dispute.  There would be no reason for canvassing etc. because the involved parties would be providing evidence and commentary instead of determining the outcome.  I understand the reasons that guideline changed, yet I strongly believed then and now that the cost/benefit was far better under the original wording.  Durova Charge! 04:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If you are going to discuss a ban, you should discuss it where it is likely to have many admins seeing the banning. As per our policy, a ban is a ban only if an admin is willing to unblock. As far as the listing I suggested, by having the listing somewhere it would be easy to tell if someone/a page was on a topic ban or not, and the full details would be there. This page could be maintained if the discussion was held here or on WP:AN. More eyes need to see this then the small group of editors that frequent here. How that is achieved I don't really care :) ——  Eagle 101 Need help? 05:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I think I perhaps misunderstood the discussion. My above comment is related to archives only. Navou banter 05:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Eagle, arbcom has endorsed the community's right to topic ban. So that formulation of policy is incomplete. Besides, sanctions can encompass a broader range of options than outright blocking or banning. Community enforceable mediation provides a mechanism for civility parole and 1RR. In the long run I think the community has to shoulder more responsibilities of that sort. The question is how. The idea you're expressing made perfect sense in summer 2005 when that became policy - yet the number of articles has grown fivefold since then and the registered accounts have increased by an order of magnitude. I don't believe the occurrence of problem users has decreased by 80% to 90% during that time. So something has to accommodate the overflow. WP:AN and WP:ANI can't do that indefinitely. Durova Charge! 18:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Please read the proposal below. The idea is to share the burden. Having AN and ANI deal with the obvious cases, such as sock puppet masters (they already do in practice). The idea would be to have a location where someone can report that there is a dispute, and a neutral party can go and investigate and propose ideas on what is needed, will mediation help? do we need to do 1RR, topic bans? ect. The key thing is we move away from this "request a ban" attitude, and move towards having neutral parties look over something and suggest solutions, and have the community debate on that. Right now whats on the page now, I can say this board is batting 1 for 5. The first one is at arbcom, the secondone was a "confirm this ban" which is just silly and needless. The 3rd was a request by raul to have an editor he did not agree with banned, after being practically told that won't happen on WP:AN, the forth one is the "success", and the 5th one is inconclusive. If the 5th one goes to having a mediator, we still end up insulting that editor by considering the ban. This place is not a very nice place to be, and it can and has been used to give editors distress that they did not really deserve. Alot of this can be fixed just by having people in a dispute or whatever merely request a 3rd party to investigate. The 3rd party can then suggest possible courses of action, and the community can debate upon it, preferably at a place without the word "sanction" in the title. Needless to say, this place has not changed much since the last MFD as far as what is happening here. Alternate ideas need to be investigated, as this place (CSN) really was not discussed at the start, rather just meta morphed WP:CN (which was a good idea). We also need to consider having one location where current and active bans/topicbans/1RR whatever are recorded. That way if WP:AN or any other location with sufficient comm enters decides to impose one of those they can just log it there. Long story short, this place is not the ideal solutoin. ——  Eagle 101 Need help? 21:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Durova, please understand, I'm not saying that the community taking a more active role in bans ect is a bad thing, just the way this board is functioning now requires an assumption of bad faith before you can even post here, and the accused are forced to "defend" themselves, almost like this were some adhoc court of law. If instead of having people who are in a dispute with another editor come and request a ban (see the MFD, that is one of the reasons why it was listed), it would be better to simply have a neutral party look over the dispute and recommend some solutions to the community. (that can be this board transformed, or just move this board back to WP:CN) Nothing will change much except for the way the discussion starts. To achieve this the creation of a dispute alert board will be needed, from there people can review disputes posted, and if needed propose mediation, WP:3O, or take it to WP:CN (or CSN if we choose to keep the sanction in there). Then the discussion is starting off on an even ground, rather then an attack by the proposing party by which the defending party must defend. Doing as I suggest will address all the major problems raised in the MFD (which was no consensus by the community). ——  Eagle 101 Need help? 22:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree about the assumption of bad faith, but that's a function of banning policy rather than of this board. If you'll check the policy discussions from April I advocated putting matters up for discussion before applying an indefinite block (whenever feasible) so the order of events wouldn't appear to prejudice the discussion against an editor.  Durova Charge! 03:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * And about the board's name, Community noticeboard was the original name I proposed. The downside of that was some people wandered over and posted things that belonged at village pump.  In theory I like the idea of a dispute resolution noticeboard.  How would you define its parameters so it wouldn't overlap with existing areas?  It might be a very good idea to have a venue for Here's my dispute.  Please recommend a good venue for solving it.  Bear in mind that dispute resolution generally includes a high percentage of bad faith posts, so it'd take a critical mass of good volunteers to keep things on track.  As I learned last fall and winter at WP:RFI and WP:PAIN, one person can't do all the work alone.  Durova Charge! 03:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Simplicity is king. A simple noticeboard where users can post and have neutral parties suggest options, and if the neutral party deems the situation a situation that WP:CN (WP:CSN whatever) can deal with, that neutral party can post suggestions and ideas here. Otherwise it can just serve as a way to help newbies with the dispute resolution process. I can only think of one rule, and that is no descriptions, just posting where the dispute is, and leaving it up to the neutral party to look at it. Also note the dispute alert board I reference below is the same board I'm speaking of here. ——  Eagle 101 Need help? 04:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Alternative
Let me go ahead and put out what I think would be very good as far as the future goes. Firstly emphasis should not be going towards any means of punishment, we should be encouraging editors to collaborate, and if they can't agree to accept mediation. When in mediation the focus should be on the issues at hand, not on what one user did. That is finger pointing, and you tend to see that in kindergarten classes, I can expect everyone here is above that maturity level, and if they are not we need to explain to them what is expected.

The primary problem we have as the site grows is keeping track of all this and making sure that more then just a select group of people are handing out the results. Even this page is not enough. The results of any community discussion should be put at some central location. So if user X is banned after short discussion on AN a note can be made at this location. Anyone that uses someone's status on this list as an advantage in a content dispute is assuming bad faith, and needs speaking to. We have to get above this "he/she did this" mentality in dealing with disputes and move towards the central issues of the dispute. Sometimes this takes more then dragging someone to a noticeboard, sometimes admins need to take the time to explain what is expected to these users vie e-mail or other non-public means.

I will note that the idea of having a "community sanction noticeboard" is kinda ugly to me. We can see just recently at least one case where people have drug other users to this board as a means to attack them. See the case that Raul654 brought to this board. Also see the case above where a user brought a ban to this board to somehow "validate" it. I'm thinking there might be better solutions then a community board for this, it tends to lead to voting, loss of good faith, abuse, and drama.

Some better solutions include using WP:AN or WP:ANI as the platform for the discussion where users can bring issues and a ban can lead to the result of said discussion, not always the purpose of the discussion to start with. Both boards are fairly low traffic, and the two or 3 cases a day won't hurt things at all, and the cases that do show up there will get the benefit of many eyeballs. To be fank, there just is not that many people watching this place. The results of those discussions can then simply be placed on the aforementioned index page. The result can be topic ban whatever.

Another addition to the above solution is to create a new noticeboard, a "dispute alert" board. This board would simply have one of the participants of a dispute put on a page "hey there is a dispute at page X, our debate is at Y" and allow neutral editors to investigate, and apply policy as need be. Should some more discussion be needed that can take place at a Community Noticeboard (what this place was before some people changed it to "sanction" without much discussion.). The important difference here is that a neutral 3rd party is posting the problem, rather then someone who is embroiled in a dispute. The advantage here is that someone neutral can say "this topic needs more attention, perhaps X will work", and the community can debate on that. This preserves a bit of neutrality on the part of the reporter, as the reporter actively has nothing to gain from the other "side" getting a ban or topic ban. Discussions at this community board can also be cross posted and the result posted at the index, but it should be a name without the word "sanction". Somewhere a bit friendlier then this, where the community can help people along to fixing the dispute. All this blather from :), ——  Eagle 101 Need help? 05:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * "We have to get above this "he/she did this" mentality in dealing with disputes and move towards the central issues of the dispute" - most certainly. We're here to build an encyclopedia, so our efforts to resolve disputes should focus on the most urgent part of the problem whenever possible - the encyclopedic, content-side of it.
 * With regards to the last paragraph, I believe that a combination of Third opinion and Wikiquette alerts with more administrators and experienced users chipping in (and rules about avoiding discussion on the 'alert' page, but rather centralizing discussion on the article talk page where discussions are generally more content-oriented) may work. I support the fact that something needs to be done in some way to make this less of a "come-here-to-fish-for-a-ban" noticeboard. We should be sorting out whatever we can at the content level, rather than misconcieved voting procedures to ban someone.  Daniel →♦  06:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That'a all well and good, but there are always going to a be a few bad actors who are incorrigible. Those need to be banned so they don't drive away productive editors.  We need to figure out where to discuss those problems.  Such discussions tend to be a bit longer than average. I think it makes sense to put a summary (a digest) on the main AN noticeboard, and then have a subpage (such as this one) with the full text and a separate archive for ease of research.  Does anyone agree with that idea? - Jehochman  Talk 13:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, do we want to add a message: "Don't list here unless the user has experienced multiple blocks." - Jehochman Talk 13:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * And another: "Don't list here if you are having dispute with the user." That would definitely cut down on the number of retaliatory filings. - Jehochman Talk 13:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know about the 'mult. blocks' text as I can think of a couple of situations off the top of my head where someone only had 1 block but had been gaming the system disruptively enough to warrant a topic/full ban. The 'dispute...user' text I fully support.  discussions initiated by one party in a dispute always seem to get closed early anyway and that might cut down on the number or retaliatory reports.  The key is to retain this board's usefulness as a way to deal with truly disruptive editors where a simple "nobody will unblock the indef'd editor" ban isn't sufficient (or an indef is contentious enough that an admin wants to gauge community support) while addressing Daniel's concern above about ban-fishing.  I'd also like to see this become more of a forum to discuss "un-banning" in cases where a previously indef'd or community (not Arbcom) banned editor is requesting a second chance... maybe working with WP:ADOPT or WP:EA--Isotope23 talk 13:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, and we should be turning MiszaBot off on the main page. These discussions should not be archived after 2 days of inactivity.  This is one place I wouldn't want to see anything archived until it had an actual human closing the discussion.--Isotope23 talk 13:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree, change the code if need be, but please allow automated archiving. Navou banter 13:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If it is being left on it should be 5-7 days instead of 2... though I still don't see much reason for it on this particular board at this time.--Isotope23 talk 14:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Summary of possible changes: The MFD on this page suggested reforms. We need to be diligent about implementing them. - Jehochman Talk 15:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Can we change the header to be both positive and negative?  This page isn't just for banning, is it?  Can we say that this is also a place to discuss unbanning? That may be a way to involve more people and increase the acceptance of this board.
 * 2) Navou, would you be willing to increase the archive bot's time parameter from 48h to 120h?
 * 3) Can we add a specific warning to the header?  "Don't list here if you are having dispute with the user."
 * I did number two fer ya. Navou banter 16:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks!--Isotope23 talk 16:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Mmm you guys kinda missed the point. There would be no need for multiple blocks, though you do have to admit that multiple blocks are normally an indicator of problems. The new system would just insure that the proceedings were a bit more neutral, and would allow neutral parties to go in and see a dispute/pattern and see if they can't come up with a better idea, rather then having the "request a ban" that we have now. The additional use would be to allow people in a dispute to say hey! there is a problem! rather then waiting for the powderkeg to blow :) Anyway I'll be gone for a few hours. Please give this idea some thought. The new procedure would still retain the ability to ask for topic bans and full bans. Just as this system does, minus the obvious conficts of interest that this system brings. ——  Eagle 101 Need help? 16:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Jehochman has an excellent point about discussing unblocks at the board, and about balancing positive and negative. And Eagle, one of the tough things to balance about dispute resolution is when and where to draw the line.  Traditionally, Wikipedia has erred on the side of too much good faith when the basis for it was no longer justifiable.  Some people - for want of a better word some trolls - happen to be sophisticated enough that they last too long and drive away good contributors.  That's one of Larry Sanger's sharpest criticisms of this site.
 * This board does see some unjustified requests. All noticeboards do.  A successful board sifts the wheat from the chaff and this one, in my opinion, has a very good track record of making those distinctions.  Once in a while a thread heads over to arbitration.  I've brought a couple of cases over there myself.  But if the measure of whether this works is whether an inappropriate thread started by an arbitration committee member gets handled fairly on its merits, this board passed the test with flying colors in the past few days.  Durova Charge! 03:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Durova, basically a "dispute alert board", where if you are in a longterm dispute with another user, instead of rushing to have them banned. (as 2 examples currently on this board that were both rejected), you would instead just request for a neutral party to investigate. The neutral party can then make the post to this board, or simply say you guys need mediation, or a 3rd opinion. This makes posts to this board far less hostile, and drops the requirement for you to assume bad faith when posting here. I think that this idea has enough merit, and will solve the problems of the MFD (which did close with no consensus). I think tomorrow I am going to consider opening a request for comment on this issue. There just is not enough heads on this talk page. I will not propose it to MFD though, as I don't think this function needs deleted, just modified to be a bit better then what it is now. All noticeboards have errors, you are right, but only 1 out 5, we can do better. To do better we need to eliminate cases where its just "ratifying" an existing ban. If there is no serious thought that we are going to unban someone, then they are banned, period. Secondly we need to make sure that neutral parties post about a problem, rather then the parties coming here and trying to get each other banned. To achieve that we just need to have a simple Dispute Alert board. Thirdly we need better log the results, a topic ban is no good if no admin knows it exists. (I say admin, as only admins can block users for violations of said topic bans). To me the example posting would be the first "case" on the page, by User:Jehochman. He is really not involved in that dispute, but saw that an action needed to be taken, and if the other user was not in an arbcom case we might be doing something with that. Neutral parties need to propose the sanctions, and a viable sanction is to get the parties to agree to say mediation or community enforceable mediation. I still suggest that this board be renamed from CSN to something else. As far as the request by raul, it should never have been made. The user on the receiving end of that did not deserve the treatment. There are better ways to do things then that. ——  Eagle 101 Need help? 04:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:Community resolution board? Navou banter 04:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That sounds better, especially if neutral parties are required to post the issue, rather then having one of the parties start off (for reasons I have elaborated several times ;) ). The name change in conjunction with the new noticeboard might just do it. If you are in a long term dispute, instead of running here for a sanction, you drop a one line note on the WP:Dispute Alert board, and neutral parties help from there. The neutral parties can do prettymuch anything, recommend WP:3O, Medcab, Medcom, community enforceable mediation, or if the situation looks like one disruptive user, propose a solution at the WP:Community resolution board, hopefully with a bit better background for the rest of the community to read and talk about. This method loses the overhead of directly threatening another user with a ban, which only leaves bad feelings and mistrust if the user is not banned. It also allows at least one neutral person to look at the dispute and see if anything else will work before we escalate it to bans.——  Eagle 101 Need help? 04:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)