Wikipedia talk:Community sanction noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives /Archive1

Contents 1 Proposal to close Community noticeboard 1.1 Arbitrary section break 1.2 Clarification and apology 1.3 A second clarification 2 Suspended 3 thanks for this 4 "Unclear" tag? 5 Purpose 6 Rename 6.1 The point 7 Using Template:Usercheck 8 Regarding the header 9 Archiving 10 Close template 11 Navbox and Archives 12 Ban library 13 Community-imposed personal attack parole 14 This is not a vote

[edit] 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, —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 00:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

I know; the reason for creating it though is "although this noticeboard is open to everyone, its title does tend to scare away the unmopified crowd" [1]. —Centrx→talk • 01:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] 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) 〈REDVEЯS〉 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 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard to Wikipedia:Administrative noticeboard right away. (→Netscott) 18:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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? >Radiant< 11:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] "Unclear" tag?

I proposed the board to discuss community actions for two reasons: the above mentioned community ban discussions and Wikipedia: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. Navou ^banter / _contribs 15:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

---

<rant>When this board first opened I started threads both here and at 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.</rant> 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: [2][3] Kla'quot 05:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yup, also agree your proposed changes seem very sensible, thanks for all your effort in organising this. Addhoc 18:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I have not even bothered to read the banning policy, so take all this for what it's worth: why the need to notify and allow editors to respond to community ban proposals? It seems unnecessarily bureaucratic, legalistic and most importantly a waste of time. If there's a reasonable belief that an editor could provide a "defense" shouldn't the case go straight to ArbCom? Isn't the community ban process supposed to be a streamlined and efficient process, a minimum of fuss and not much time and effort expended—only for the obvious cases? Based on the ban discussions i've seen, the manner those editors went about "defending" themselves is the reason they were exhausting the communities patience in the first place. If a ban proposal needs statements in defense and legalistic procedures then isn't it better handled by the committee? Waste their time rather than the community's.—eric 17:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Disagree eric, I think we should be able to arrange a straightforward template that would only take a minute to post. Addhoc 18:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Eric, two of my links in the long statement above point to recent instances where a community banned editor appealed the decision to ArbCom and based the appeal in part on those points: since these problem users were blocked while the decision was ongoing and not notified until after it closed, the community effectively denied them the means of defense. I wouldn't establish notification or defense as absolute rights. Having dealt with many problem editors, I know how such standards could be gamed. Yet it's reasonable to let the person know what's up so long as they're reasonable enough to supply a prompt and topical response without exploiting the opportunity with further disruption. ArbCom may decide this issue for the community if we don't decide it ourselves: the Committee is leaning toward opening a case for WP:RFAR#Request_to_review_indefinite_block_of_User:BabyDweezil. Durova^Charge! 20:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] 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? Navou ^banter / _contribs 20:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rename

Additionally, are there any objections to the moving if this project page to Wikipedia:Community sanctions noticeboard? Navou ^banter / _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. Navou ^banter / _contribs 14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

Please, not another village pump. Seriously, who regularly reads all six village pumps nowadays? This page is for important discussions regarding the community, IMHO. Banning someone, big policy changes/merges, Essjay. At least I see it that way. I know that the top of this page says otherwise, but having one page on my watchlist (and not half a dozen) to keep up with the important stuff just sounds kinda useful to me. --Conti|✉ 14:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• Yes. And therein lies the problem. Everyone who reads these pages wants a single page for The Important Stuff. Only some people use another page, such as WP: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. >Radiant< 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. >Radiant< 16:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] The point

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] 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: <p align=center>{{usercheck|1=username}}</p>   May I suggest this as possibly helpful? -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 00:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Yep, thanks. Addhoc 18:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding the header

There is a discussion underway regarding the contents of the header here. All are encouraged to participate. Navou ^banter / _contribs 16:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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? Navou ^banter / _contribs 18:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] 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? Navou ^banter / _contribs 13:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

[edit] 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. Navou ^banter / _contribs 19:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] 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. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 03:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

See also: Wikipedia:List of banned users#Banned by the Wikipedia_community — PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 04:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

[edit] 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)Navou ^banter / _contribs 15:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

This all seems to fall under the umbrella of Wikipedia: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)

[edit] 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. >Radiant< 15:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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