Wikipedia talk:Banning policy/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

closest to a mistake

"The closest Wikipedia has got to making a mistake on this issue, and blocking someone who wasn't in fact banned, was when one banned user tried to impersonate another banned user."

If it was a banned user impersonating someone, who does the "blocking someone who wasn't in fact banned" refer to? Shouldn't it be a non-banned user doing the impersonating? Angela. 23:44, May 10, 2004 (UTC)
That's the closest we've got to it. We've never actually done it. I guess this needs to be clearer. Martin 17:50, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

Automatic punishment for ban evasion

There are roughly three schools of thought:

A) A ban of one month lasts one month, regardless of attempts at evasion. B) A ban of one month requires one month of uninterrupted absence from Wikipedia - any attempt to evade that ban automatically resets the ban timer. Banned users with poor self-control may end up banning themselves indefinately. C) Evading a ban is itself a bannable offence - doing so automatically triples the ban length (after which, (B) applies).

(B) has precedent in that it's how we dealt with Cantus when he evaded a quickpoll ban. I'm unaware of any other precedents on the matter, so I intend to write this into wikipedia:banning policy, (I mentioned this on wikien-l). Those who favour a different approach are welcome to chat about it. Martin 19:03, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

I would prefer:
D) Evading a ban would cause the ban to be automatically extended by two weeks (or another period of time). However, the total length of the ban after this extension cannot exceed that of the original ban.
—Guanaco 07:16, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Resetting the clock sounds appropriate to me - rather than tripled times, additional set period, etc. Call for other ideas and do a straw poll? - David Gerard 13:32, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I believe that any attempt to come up with a mechanical solution is counterproductive. We should seek to enforce bans through both social and technical measures. If this is done effectively, there should be little opportunity for evasion. Any evasion that is serious enough to pose a problem is probably best dealt with on a case by case basis. UninvitedCompany 14:47, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
You have a point there. Though I think that once we have more experience, some bureaucracy on the point would be appropriate, so the regulations are clear. In the meantime, perhaps including penalty for ban evasion in the penalty? If the AC think that's a suitable idea - David Gerard 15:43, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Evading a ban doesn't win you any brownie points in the popular consciousness. In a sense, that's the additional punishment, I guess. Martin 18:00, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Human proxies?

I would welcome your thoughts on this offer: [1] User:Irismeister is banned from editing Iridology; User:Mr-Natural-Health offers to act as a proxy for his edits. Is this different from using an anonymous web proxy? What about the offer without action? - David Gerard 23:50, May 27, 2004 (UTC)

I think it is different from an anon web proxy, as there's some intelligence involved, and the possibility of filtering, as well as a delay. For users who are completely banned, it would be different, but where the intention of a ban from one page is to require users to propose changes on Talk, this kind of offer doesn't appear problematic to me.
I added a little about proxying for banned users to the page. Martin 23:38, 29 May 2004 (UTC)
That sounds right :-) - David Gerard 09:50, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

Baiting block proposed

In view of the recent incidents, please consider the merits of a process to temporarily block for 24 hours of anyone who is apparently baiting a temporarily banned contributor. Perhaps any three admins in agreement to start it and then a simple majority to undo it if there are objections. All parties to the dispute prohibitid from participating in votes or enacting this temporary block. I propose you including this in all of your rulings which involve a ban. Jamesday 00:01, 29 May 2004 (UTC)


Thats probably a good idea. Being banned is stressful and unpleasent enough without people intentionally harassing an individual. I propose however that obvious baiting be considered unnaceptable in general, even outside of situations involving a ban. How about this use of a username space? 'User:Lord Kenneth' or other, similar examples? Sam [Spade] 00:28, 29 May 2004 (UTC)
Um I don't think I agree with you Sam (I'm sort of thinking out loud here). Baiting someone who is banned is a clear, and simple violation of good manners. You say something nasty on their talk page, they are unable to defend themselves, or to even wipe your comments. We can all see, at a glance that that is wrong. LK is an entirely different matter. It's his own user space, he should pretty much be able to say whatever he likes on it. I don't like people being rude, and would rather people didn't list their their wikienimies on their userpages but should we censure people who do it? I don't know. My gut feeling is that we probably should not. theresa knott 19:42, 29 May 2004 (UTC)
The basis of my point is that it is not "their" user space, but rather is community property, as are all other parts of the wiki, designed for making a better encyclopedia. Do you think he (a departed user AFAIK) is using his user page space for the good of the project? A similar circumstance involved lists on wik's user page (now removed). Sam [Spade] 22:19, 29 May 2004 (UTC)

I think we should start off by saying that baiting banned users is inappropriate, before worrying about enforcement. So I've edited the page, given that I can't see any objections. Martin 23:29, 29 May 2004 (UTC)

That's sensible Matin. I have some other thoughts on the subject that we need to think about
  1. Banned users are very rare, baiting of said banned users is even rarer. In fact I am only aware of one such case - the baiting of Wik by a number of users during his 7 day ban. We should not bother thinking up punishments to deal with such rare problems but should simply allow admins to use their good judgement. The protecting of Wik's user pages and talk pages and the deleting of any other pages created in order to try and provoke Wik seems to have worked.
  1. For users who have left, their users pages are unlikely to ever be viewed by anyone. Who's going to look at the user page of someone who no longer edits?
  1. Sometimes people want to leave a parting shot explaining why they have left. These are frequently (Er- how shall i put this?) passionate. I think they should be allowed to do this.
You are all a bunch of twats, especially users A B and C. They've hounded me out of here, and the admins did nothing to stop them. All admins are wankers. GOODBYE LOOZERS!"
I think that A B and C should feel pretty pleased. Someone who hates them has left. That should be the end of it as far as I am concerned. Anyway we can hardly punish a user who has left now can we? We can always refactor out the personal attacks, but we would have to do the very carefully so as to keep the argument the same.
I'm leaving but I love you all would be wrong.
I'm leaving because I've has some problems with certain users and the rest of the community (especially the admins) did nothing to help sort out these problemswould be better but personally I'd go for

You are all a bunch of twats, I've had problems with A B and C and the admins did nothing to help. All admins are wankers. GOODBYE LOOZERS! The personal attack against A B and C has gone but the general attack stays. People must be allowed to critisize Wikipedia, the community, and the policies. If we try to stifle this we really will be forming a cabal.

  1. For active contributors, I think we should try to influence them, rather than punish them.
  1. In reply to Sam's argument. It actually does help in a funny sort of way. When I read a person's user page I do it to get to know something about them. This person is funny, I can have a laugh with them. This person is sensitive I need to temper my usual brashness. This person has a huge list of personal attacks, I can safely think of them as a problem user.

User:Theresa knott

This all seems sensible to me, Theresa Martin

Returning banned users

I am a little disturbed by the amount of energy going into trying to link current users to previously banned users. I would like to see the old tradtition of discouraging witchhunts in these cases - treat a user on the merits of their current contributions, allow banned users to turn over a new leaf and contribute productively. Mark Richards 15:40, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The case you're referring to is obvious. I don't believe the term "witchhunt" is appropriate and I have changed the title accordingly. You weren't here to see the destruction the last three times around, and the amount of time and energy spent by the community in dealing with it. Without the benefit of such knowledge, the present focus may well seem confusing. Essentially all banned users asked by Jimbo to leave were given the option to return provided they talked to Jimbo first, which has not been done in this case. It is not as though there is no mechanism for forgiveness.
The fact that relatively few present-day Wikipedians were present for these community decisions does not change the fact that they were indeed community decisions that deserve the same respect of us now as we would expect of those users to come of decisions that we make today. With the amount of turnover we have, with contribution periods averaging about six months, we can ill afford to ignore the work of those who have been here before.

UninvitedCompany 19:26, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

If there is a 'large amount of destruction' this time, then ban them. Otherwise let them contribute. Let sleeping dogs lie, and don't bait users who may well have learned a lesson. I don't think that you mean to imply that decisions that were made in the past could not be revisited if they do not serve the needs of the project any longer. Mark Richards 20:09, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Any chance of being let in on what particular case is the issue here? In the general case, I'd tend to agree with Mark, but without knowing exactly what the problem is here, it's hard to say anything very meaningful. --Camembert

UC is implying that I am writing this specifically relating to the case of JRR Trollkein. While he is right that I am interested in that case, it is not because of the particulars, but because of the precident and the principle. I believe that we need to focus strictly on problematic edits, and make decisions on the basis of those, rather than spending a lot of time and energy speculating on motive, or possible relationships to previously banned users. Mark Richards 15:57, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

To take one example, user:Michael - if I see someone who is clearly Michael editing music articles, I'm going to block him and revert his changes. I don't think it necessarily requires to routinely check his edits, check all the dates with the record company, verify that there are indeed errors, and then block and revert him.

Basically, we ban people because their problematic behaviour is too difficult to deal with on the basis of the edits alone, so we are forced to look at the human behind the edits. Focusing myopically on the problematic edits requires an excess of time and concentration, compared to recognising who they come from, dealing with them appropriately, and moving on.

If we believe that banned users may have turned over a new leaf, we should unban them! Leaving them formally banned, but allowing them to edit freely, is just hypocritical, and sends mixed messages to those we would prefer to leave. If we're to have parole, where we allow previously banned users to edit if they stick closely to the rules, we should make that official, shouldn't we? - Martin 00:42, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

are people unbanned w any kind of regularity? I know it happened w Lir... Is mailing Jimbo (and I assume his consent...) still the solitary method for such a redemption? Sam [Spade] 00:47, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Well, they are now, because the arbcom has been issuing temp bans, where Jimbo was an all-or-nothing person. Mailing Jimbo is one way to be formally unbanned, requesting arbitration would be another. Where the ban is primarily because of a conflict with a few people, requesting mediation is probably an option. Martin 00:51, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry that people feel that it would take too much time and attention for them to consider each case on its merits. I disagree, and value the openness of a wiki too much to turn it into a closed community where people are banned without consideration of their contributions. Banning must be a last resort if we value what a wiki is. Mark Richards 19:40, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

We do consider each person on their merits. Neither the arbitration committee, nor Jimbo Wales, bans people without considering their contributions, and the banning process is a slow one. It takes a lot of effort to get your editing priviledges on Wikipedia revoked, though some people do manage it. Banning is already a last resort, and I'm glad that you approve of us using bans as a last resort.
Once someone is banned, blocks of various kinds are one way we enforce that ban. Again, we don't rush to judgement, but where it is obvious that an account is a sock puppet of a banned user, that account is blocked from editing Wikipedia.
I think you need to be clear on what you want, and currently you're not. Do you want us to use bans of users less often, or for shorter time periods? Or, do you want us to change the way we use account blocks against banned users? Which is it to be? Martin 22:10, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I want admins to follow community made policy, and not endanger the notion of a wiki by denying access without exploring all other options first. In at least some cases, there have been no other steps taken before users are banned (Leo Trollsoty for example). I do not believe that banning is an effective way of reducing conflict on wikis, nor do I want to see WP turn into an increasingly closed community. I think probably that the only reason that I would advocate for banning someone is refusing to discuss things collaboratively persistantly, over an extended period of time. Mark Richards 00:45, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Well, I agree that admins should follow community made policy. However, you've not answered my question, really. Consider the current community made policy, as expressed at wikipedia:banning policy, wikipedia:blocking policy, on how we use account blocks against banned users. Do you believe it is sensible? Or, do you believe it needs to change?
I can certainly sympathise with your viewpoint on bans in general, and I'm sure we could have an interesting discussion over which of the currently banned users we each feel should be unbanned. However, my feeling is that once we've decided to ban someone, and due process has been followed, we should allow those bans to be enforced, whatever our personal opinions on the matter. That doesn't mean that I necessarilly have to join in the efforts to enforce a ban - just that I shouldn't get in the way of others who do so. Would you agree with me on this? Martin 01:55, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Well, the reason I don't seem to have answered your question is because it is loaded with all kinds of things... 'we' have decided to ban someone? Who has? Someone has interpreted a policy, and decided a user should be banned, someone else has interpreted it and decided that they should not be. How do we decide who is right? I don't believe the policy has been followed in the case of LT, which is on RFROAA, if you care to comment on that. Yours, Mark Richards 02:18, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Gee whiz, let me think. Maybe we read the policy. Leo Trollstoy aside, why do you keep unblocking JRR Trollkien in light of obvious consensus? - Hephaestos|§ 02:52, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Gee whiz, let me think. Maybe you should read the policy. JRRT aside, why do you keep blocking LT and ToN against clear policy? Mark Richards 18:11, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I'm trying not to load my question, so my apologies if it seems that way. To respond to one sentence, you say:
Someone has interpreted a policy, and decided a user should be banned
No. Someone has interpreted a policy, and decided that an account (actually, several accounts) should be blocked. Key difference.
That the person known variously as 142.177.etc and EofT and other things is banned is, I hope, not in dispute here. It was a Jimbo ruling (two, in fact), back when Jimbo took charge of such things personally.
You go on to say that, if I understand you correctly, you have interpreted current policy, and decided that JRR Trollkien should not be blocked. Ok, that's interesting. Perhaps you could share with us your reasoning on the matter? What lead you to that decision? Martin 00:55, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I understand you Martin, you say you are correcting my use of the word 'user', pointing out that it is an account that should be blocked, then go on to mention that the person EofT etc has been banned. I'm not sure where that gets us. However, as I mentioned, the resons mentioned for blocking the JRRT account are variously, username, allegedly being a banned user, opinions (apparently promoting a fork), edits. I'm not sure which is the reason for the block, so it's difficult to say. My basic concern is that I am not sure that there is evidence or justification for any of these reasons. If the account is indeed that of a banned user, I would not oppose a block. I know that you are convinced, I remain unconvinced. I would accept a ruling by the AC, or a clarification by the community as a whole about how disputes are to be resolved. Mark Richards 01:29, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Discussion continues at wikipedia talk:policies and guidelines

Clean slate

I'd like to see new users (as in newly created accounts) being given a relatively clean slate. If they behave badly, and there is solid evidence (I.P. + circumstantial) that they are a banned user, then block the account. If they arn't behaving badly, I really don't agree w messing about w who they might be. Newly created accounts prob should not be allowed to vote for a time, some sort of "probation", and maybe there might be other restrictions, but I myself was accused of being a returned banned user. It was not pleasent, and while I was exonerated (via I.P.) I was never appologised to by my accuser, and the unfriendliness of it all certainly gave me reason to consider leaving the wikipedia permanantly. The less false accusations, and the more good edits the better, IMO. Sam [Spade] 02:45, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hmm - the accusations and the unfriendliness are a matter of culture, not policy, I guess. Wouldn't having a tried and trusted way of dealing with reincarnations make people more tolerant of newcomers rather than less? After all, you weren't ever blocked, right? Martin 18:17, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Nope, the accusations against me were extremely thin (did not involve me violating policy, for example) but were hurtful nonetheless. Anyhow my main point is that new editors should be given the benefit of the doubt until they start violating policy. Sam [Spade] 05:31, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The accusations and conflict seeking behavior are a major cause of the problem. The assumption that there is a technical fix involving banning is just wrong, unless you are willing to give up the concept of open editing. Much of the vandalism / trolling seems to be caused by frustration and anger at sysops behavior. Mark Richards 20:15, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

case law

Dear RedDice,

I note you deleted my addittion to this page:

The arbitration committee takes a grave view of users offering to assist banned users make edits. In June 2004, it extended a users ban for further week for this misdemeanour [2].

You explained this as being "because we don't make policy - just interpret it".

I believe my section should stay, edited if necessary, because, as I far as I know, this is a precedent that is not covered by policy. While it is true the AC's primary role is not to create policy, it inevitably will. The law (or policy) will never cover all senarios and the gaps are filled in by precedent. It helps make the system more just if these precedents are documented. If, of course, this decision is somehow reversed (Jimbo, appeal, popular revolt?) then that changes everything. But in the meantime, this is the closest we have to a policy on this topic.

Just to remove any doubt, my post was not intended in anyway to criticise the AC. I was mere aiming to capture an historic fact. If noone else agree's with me then I'll drop it! best wishes Erich 03:34, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Since we now have precedent, maybe it could become policy, without implying that the arbcom actually made the policy. Perhaps "it is against Wikipedia policy for users to offer to assist banned users in making edits" could be added instead? Angela. 17:19, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Erich - the arbcom policy explains that we don't want to bind our hands with precedents from early incompetence - we might contradict ourselves in later (more wiser?) rulings. So I wanted to set a precedent that we don't set precedents! :)
Certainly I have no objection to the clarification of policy Angela proposes. h2g2 had something similar - though they forbade actually making edits on behalf of banned users, rather than merely offering. It did seem to work there, though I objected strongly at the time. Martin 11:08, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
ah I see the logic. well that is fair enough too and its an important point. Perhaps blaming caution on fear of incompetence may be a bit excessively self-deprecating... how about putting it down to a desire to 'remain flexible in order to allow future decisions to be shaped by the experience of community reaction and to mitigate the unforseen circumstances of earlier decisions' (earlier gibberish cut by author) Erich 11:27, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I believe you can find something similar at wikipedia:arbitration policy already. :) Martin 12:50, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
oh yes... oops. Well I'd still maintain that precedents are worth collecting... if I was a betting man I'd be predicting that the AC is more likely to act in accord with previous decision than not. (I assume you are planning to act randomly!) Collecting the past decisions is not hard... and for new wikipedians trying to figure out how order is maintained and what the rules are they may be the best indication we've got. The way precedents work is that once they are established most often they never go back to 'court' because people just accept them. (unless there is appeal or controversy of course). Although, the danger of not making the precedents explicit is they may pass by without the community ever really noticing them. So I still think we should make them epxlicit, call them what they are (previous decisions) and at the same time ephasise the disclaimer about not being binding. if noone else agrees I'll stop bleating about it. Erich 02:03, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Human Proxying part 2

The guidelines state:

Because we discourage people from using Wikipedia to interact with banned users, it is likewise inappropriate to post material on behalf of banned users. Such activity is sometimes called "proxying". As people respond to such material, this will inevitably draw in the banned user, and again may tempt them to subvert their ban. Our aim is to make it as easy as possible for banned users to leave Wikipedia with their dignity intact, whether permanently, or for the duration of their ban. Offering to proxy is likewise inappropriate.

Do those apply to encyclopedic information? As in, if a user creates a great new article, am I forbidden from posting it to wikipedia (assuming it is NPOV, GFDL ...)? Jrincayc 21:04, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It would depend if you were posting it to Wikipedia because the banned user had asked you ("on behalf of") or whether you'd come across it in the normal course of research, and wished to copy the material to Wikipedia. In the latter case, you might want to copy it, though personally I'd still advise caution.
Perhaps we should indicate that the proxying rule is especially true for comments and debate, and a little more flexible in the case of encyclopedic content published elsewhere? Martin 22:10, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
How about changing "inappropriate to post material" to "inappropriate to post comments and debate"? Since the top of the page states: "You can still contribute indirectly by publishing GFDL or public domain articles and images elsewhere on the web that Wikipedians can use as resources." to say it is inapproprate to post material would be contradictory. I have in the past offered to proxy encyclopedic material for two reasons: 1) if they give me useful material, then Wikipedia is improved. 2) it lessons the incentive to try and bypass the other methods of banning. I agree that comments and debate would tend to get out of hand, but I don't see any way that proxying encyclopedic information would be harmful. I think that this would be better to wait and see if there is a problem before banning it altogether. Jrincayc 01:57, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Where someone is proxying -- i.e., openly soliciting comments from an indef banned user (who even after the ban has used socks), in order to serve as a proxy for the banned user -- what steps can be taken? Is there a warning template? Does it go direct to ANI with a request for a ban? Tx.--Epeefleche 23:15, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Getting unbanned

How does one go about getting oneself unbanned? Since there are some permanent bans, presumably in say six months the person may have grown up, decided to become a useful contributer, etc. This page does not list any method for becoming unbanned. Jrincayc 21:07, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Via the appeals process? I've made a change as a suggestion, revert if it's a problem. Martin 22:13, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Standing orders

(from Wikipedia talk:Requests for Arbitration/Standing orders/Anthony)

I propose modifying this proposal in two ways.

The first is a clarification of existing policy - that arbcom can authorise paroles, in which any sysop may apply 24hr temp-bans, at their judgement, in particular circumstances. We did this for Wik, for example. I'll make this change now, since it's just making something specific.

The second change is to note that such paroles may be entered into voluntarilly, with Wikipedia:Requests for Arbitration/Standing orders/Anthony being the first example. This is a change, but I can't imagine it's controversial. From that page, I have the following people who I believe are in favour of it:

Angela, Bcorr, Cimon Avaro (mediators)
Raul654, Anthony DiPierro (folks in mediation)
James F, the Epopt, Martin, Fred (arbitrators)

If there are no objections I think it's worth making that second change. When and where should we advertise to let people comment and/or object? Martin 22:55, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Typo

The huwiki translator mentioned that there seem to be a typo or misphrasing:

  • The Arbitration Committee can impose a parole whereby any sysop can, at their judgement, impose a 24-hr temp ban for a violation of the parole, even though this offence would not normally be a bannable offence.

This ought to be block and not ban. --grin ✎ 2005 June 28 20:21 (UTC)

User pages

I added the bit about putting a notice of the ban on blocked users' user pages. This has long been our policy, see:

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:31, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Admin decision?

This is a little disturbing:

"Some editors are so odious that not one of the 500+ admins will unblock them."

So does this mean that if none of the admins will unblock somebody, then even if community consensus is to let them back it's OK that they remain blocked? ~~ N (t/c) 22:09, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

How can the community consensus be to let them back in if 500 members of the community don't want to let them back in? Is the percentage of admins really so low that a unamimous agreememnt among all of them does not block consensus? While the wording of this is somewhat odd, I think it is quite reasonable; the ability to have community bans - i.e. lots of people agreeing that it's a good idea, and very few people disagreing, is a useful and valuable feature of the policy. JesseW, the juggling janitor 22:54, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
I agree on community bans, but I think that if (and when) the admins are not a large enough bloc to sway the consensus legitimately, they shouldn't be able to override it. ~~ N (t/c) 23:06, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
I agree with that, but I think if that happens, we need to focus on RfA and promote a lot of new admins until it is no longer a problem. Do you think we have that problem now, or will soon? JesseW, the juggling janitor 23:14, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
I doubt it's a problem; Wikipedia:Banned users#Banned by the Wikipedia community only contains users who have commited and continued to commit obvious policy violations. ~~ N (t/c) 23:21, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
I was asking if you thought that the number of accounts with sysop privilages was too small a bloc to sway consensus legitimately, or if that situation was imminent. JesseW, the juggling janitor 00:00, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
  • The short answer to Nickptar's question here is 'yes'. Radiant_>|< 13:16, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
That's not a rare situation. Basically, really obnoxious people are often much more of a headache for the admins than for other editors, so admins prefer them blocked. Conversely, obnoxious people who annoy other editors but are wise enough to stay away from admins often (in general, on other sites etc) go unpunished for years. Stevage 13:55, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
There are too many admins on Wikipedia for someone to avoid. Being really obnoxious is unlikely to get you a community ban. You'd have to make threats or vandailise on a big scale. The chance of 550 admins all being unwilling to unblock a real jerk and the community as a whole wanting him unblocked is infinitessimal. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 14:02, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

One line summary

My one line summary was removed from this page. It was: Users may be banned for varying times. They may appeal, but must not circumvent the ban, so don't bait them or help them to try. Could people help reword this to make it summarise the essence of this page, if it doesn't already do so? Let's leave aside the question of whether the summary should itself appear on this page. :) Project details at template:Guideline one liner Stevage 13:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

  • You're too focused on keeping it to one line. The line doesn't state why people may be banned; the clause "for varying times" is semantically void; "so don't bait them" is too much a corollary to be part of the one liner; and in general this is one of our longest policies, content-wise, so summarizing it is tricky. Radiant_>|< 14:13, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

WP:TP#Etiquette is in conflict with WP:BAN#Enforcement

I was wondering if we could avoid future problems by adding the following to the enforcement section, I have also proposed adding this to the etiquette section at WP:TP...

Edits on user talk pages made by sockpuppets or meatpuppets of banned users should be followed with a comment stating that they have been banned along with proof unless the user has stated that they do not mind allowing other users to revert third party comments at will.

karmafist 21:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Indefinite block

Simple question: does indefinite block of an user account and all of its sockpuppet accounts performed by multiple various administrators constitute for a permanent ban?

Case in question: Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Roitr - so far this user has not shown the desire to respect other editors and continues revert warring using anonymous IPs and sockpuppet accounts, but if he changes his mind about his behaviour, is he allowed to edit using some new account? --Dmitry 23:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Your first question: Yes, a User is banned if idefinitely blocked by an Administrator, and no Administrator is willing to reverse the block. Second: If a banned user expresses contrition, they may be given another chance to edit using their screenname. If a banned user decides to change their behavior without a public announcement, and gets a new screenname, that's a different scenario. If they really change their behavior, and don't make any connection with the previous account, they may be alright. However, if a connection is made to their old account, their new account will likely also be banned, again, unless they express contrition. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 01:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Is this correct?

Do I have this correctly? A banned user is not allowed to edit some pages, but still can. However, if he edits the pages he is banned from, he will be blocked. A blocked user cannot edit any pages.

Something like that. Banning is basically a community decision to remove the privelege of editing either a certain set of articles, or the entirety of Wikipedia, from a certain user. Blocking is a software implementation that can be used to enforce a Ban, among other functions. If a user is banned from a certain article, or groups of articles, the user may not edit that article or that group of articles. If a user is banned from Wikipedia, the user may not edit any articles. If a user violates a Ban, they may be Blocked. Also, Did you know that you can sign your comments to Talk pages by typing four tildes, like so: ~~~~? That way we know who made comments on the Talk page, and when. Thanks! Ëvilphoenix Burn! 01:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


Report users?

Is there an appropriate place/way to report users to moderators/admin that potentially need to be blocked/banned? Kat, Queen of Typos 05:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. (I responded further on Rainbow7180's talk page.) szyslak (t, c, e) 06:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

what constitutes community consensus to ban?

According to the article, if any single admin is willing to unblock a user, then consensus to block does not exist. This sentence has two problems. Firstly, it discounts entirely the opinions of nonadmins. Why should only an admin's willingness to unblock matter? What if a dozen good-faith editors ask for a user to be unblocked, but no admins are willing. This is probably an unrealistic situation; if there are a dozen users willing to stand up for another, then there is an admin also willing to listen. Nevertheless, the wording is bad.

Secondly, does the existence of a single admin willing to unblock really constitute consensus? This sentence has been invoked recently in ArbCom cases and on AN/I to override nearly unanimous consensus that a user should remain blocked. It does make sense that permbans should require a very strict supermajority kind of consensus, but is 100% too high? -lethe talk + 19:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Followups to Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#what_constitutes_community_consensus_to_ban.3F please. -lethe talk + 20:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

how do i report a user?

i'm sure this is on here somewhere, i just can't find it. Joeyramoney 01:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:AN/I is a good place to do so. -lethe talk + 02:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Adding WP:OFFICE

A sysop may be banned (blocked?) per WP:OFFICE. Where should this be added: at the banning or blocking policy? googl t 18:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Escalation process from block to ban?

  • "The decision to ban a user can arise from ... The Wikipedia community, taking decisions according to appropriate community-designed policies with consensus support, or (more rarely) following consensus on the case itself." WP:BAN
  • "As per the blocking and banning policies, a user who alienates and offends the community enough may eventually be blocked by an administrator... and no one is willing to unblock them. In such extreme cases, the user is considered to have been banned by the general community." WP:BU

There seems to be a formal difference between a long term/indefinite block, and a ban, and these two cites suggest a formalization, without actually saying how it is obtained (except possibly "it appears to be that the block is de facto a ban because nobody seems to be reverting it")

I think we need some clarification and thought here:

  • Is a ban more than just a block that is allowed to persist through lack of any admin caring to reverse it?
  • If there is a difference, then in what way is a "block" escalated to a "ban", by "the Wikipedia community" or by "consensus on the case itself"?
  • How does "the community" tell whether "the user is considered to have been banned by the general community", and the user become listed on WP:BU if so?

The case in point is HeadleyDown (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), listed on WP:LTA -- a sock/meat master, who (as an editor) invented forged cites and engaged in vandalism, POV warfare and personal attack under some 20 socks/meats, was Arbcom'ed, received multiple blocks after Arbcom, was eventually indef blocked under all accounts, and has since attempted to reappear as new socks. He's indef blocked.

His case leaves the following questions: Is there a formal difference between indefinite blocks and a ban? If yes does it matter and what's the escalation policy for his case? If no then why treat bans as a separate thing and have a separate policy? Why not just call them indefinite blocks?

Clarification of these issues please :) Thanks! FT2 (Talk | email) 22:27, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

just a question...

What happens if a banned user tries to revert vandalism? --Frosty ('sup?) 13:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo bans

This statement is rather odd. "Jimbo Wales retains the power to ban users, and has used it. These bans cannot be appealed." This brings out the thought, by me, that it is appealable. Its more of a power structure issue. Aside from WMF, Jimbo's bans are pretty much the strongest. Below that, ArbCom's bans, then the consensus bans. So, if Jimbo bans a user, they can still appeal to Jimbo, just not to ArbCom. Kevin_b_er 23:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)



I think this should be changed: "While any arbitration decision may be nominally be appealed to Jimbo Wales or the Wikimedia Foundation, historically neither has intervened"

Unless I'm missing something, the sentence above should be changed to "While any arbitration decision may be appealed to Jimbo Wales or the Wikimedia Foundation, historically neither has intervened." Remove this from the talk page if I'm correct and after you've made the change, or if I'm incorrect and a change is not needed. Thanks! LandOfIsrael 18:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Partial community ban

Is there such a thing? A more detailed question is found at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Community edit restrictions?

--EngineerScotty 16:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Question

Can it be a good idea if any vandalizing users will be permanently banned and get their Ip Adress terminated, preventing other users from creating their account? Is this a good idea? Best Gamer 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Decision to ban section

I want to rewrite the point below, but I've no idea what it means. Can someone tell me what is meant by "community", "taking decisions", "community-designed policies" and "case"? Thanks.

The decision to ban a user can arise from various sources:

# The Wikipedia community, taking decisions according to appropriate community-designed policies with consensus support, or (more rarely) following consensus on the case itself.

IronDuke 23:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Why no TOC?

I'm not sure, but the table of contents for the policy page was turned off. I turned it back on, as it is extremely helpful to see headings on policy pages. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Evading the Ban ... Leyasu

I would just like to point out that the user:Leyasu is still actively editing several different articles despite being completely banned from editing on wikipedia. The user does not even bother to deny being Leyasu, as evident on my talk page and elsewhere. Presenting the many identities of Leyasu ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/81.152.216.25
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/81.153.41.223
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/81.155.146.226
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/81.157.66.36
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/81.157.91.34
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/81.153.143.33
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/81.157.80.240
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/81.153.44.28
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/81.157.68.251
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/81.153.40.247
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/81.156.159.73
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/81.153.143.62
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/81.157.65.172
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/81.153.42.24
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/81.157.69.113
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/81.157.66.19
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/81.153.142.241
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/81.156.158.118
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/81.153.42.120
--Anarchodin 04:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

confused

Well, I'm a bit confused. Reading that and "policy of blocking" I see that both are similar. Can anyone tell the main difference between "Blocking policy" and "Banning policy ? 83.9.235.83 20:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The two are indeed highly similar. The primary difference is that a block is very, very temporary, and is meant primarily to prevent additional disruption of Wikipedia (from anon vandals, etc.); it could be likened to sending a child to sit in the corner of a room. A ban, on the other hand, is closer to sending a child out of the room entirely; while some bans are temporary, it is usually a lot more permanent than a block.
That's my take on it; I hope that made some sense (and, more importantly, is accurate). EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm it's like blocking a minor vandal and using ban for more dangerous internet trolls (evading blocks by using other accounts, starting flamewars etc.) ? 83.9.235.83 20:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Community banning

This looks like a good time to update the community ban section. The community has begun applying topic bans in addition to outright sitebans. See Wikipedia:Community_noticeboard/Archive2#Community_ban_request_on_User:GordonWatts, which GordonWatts attempted to appeal to ArbCom and the committee rejected his appeal. Also the recently closed Wikipedia:Community_noticeboard#Community_ban_proposal_for_Miracleimpulse.

Also I suggest including a link to the guideline Wikipedia:Disruptive editing which offers a model for community action culminating in community bans. An important criterion there makes a consensus of uninvolved editors is the standard for community banning. That part has been at guideline level for half a year now with no problems (it was implemented as a safeguard against good people getting railroaded out of the project) so I suggest adding that qualification to the banning policy statement on community bans.

Respectfully proposed. DurovaCharge! 05:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

"As a matter of curiousity" how many "banned and nuisance persons" operate across more than one language/Wiki area? If the number is "very low" it might be easier to consider other routes than blanket bans. The crossovers are more likely to occur in some areas than others - eg English/Simple English.

A broad policy and a case by case handling might be easier than a "sledge and peanut" policy. Jackiespeel 15:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure any comprehensive survey has been performed about multiple language problem users. Each language edition is administrated separately and decides on its own policies. Wikipedia.en doesn't have an oversight role - that would rest with Meta. While an effort to coordinate banning policies across languages might be worthwhile, it's tangential to this particular thread. I'm requesting that the policy language be brought up to date with actual practice. DurovaCharge! 18:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
"As a matter of curiousity" how many "banned and nuisance persons" operate across more than one language/Wiki area? If the number is "very low" it might be easier to consider other routes than blanket bans
I think you are misinterperting the use of "ban" in this area. A community ban is only for en.WP. Although sometimes people may use "ban" to describe a wikimedia wide ban for editor who engages in threats, it is seldom done in practice since currently every wiki has a seperate user log and there is not way to automatically connect account on several wiki's to one person. Alhough there are occasions when a "banned user" popped up on another wiki and was noticed and blocked; it is rare. This may change in the future, but I have heard of no disscusion of a method for instituting wikimedia wide bans as of now. In any event such an method of banning would need a seperate policy (i.e. not on en.WP) with much wider discussion. If you are disscussing a policy on en.WP, the issues being disscussed will not be applied outside of en.WP.--BirgitteSB 21:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
A very low number I think. Sofar I only have been tracking a spammer and a group of kids trying to get their names into various articles. Apart from that I have only come accross one crackpot being banned/blocked in 3 or 4 wikkies. OTOH some editors have been referred to as being banned on xx wikki, which never was a reason to block them here as long as they did not disrupt here. Agathoclea 14:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) May we return to the original suggestion? DurovaCharge! 21:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the arbcom should write this policy. They are after all the people who ban contributors. Andries 21:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Updated community ban language

Some recent developments at WP:CN and WP:RFAR have revealed a need to update and refine policy on community banning. Here is a diff of the new change.[3] Before making the changes I solicited input in four venues: here, WP:CN, WP:AN, and Wikipedia talk:Community noticeboard. Threaded discussion can be found at Wikipedia_talk:Community_noticeboard#.22Unclear.22_tag.3F. As the previous thread here at this board demonstrates, I sought discussion for eight days before taking action. DurovaCharge! 14:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Some recent developments at WP:CN and WP:RFAR have revealed a need to update and refine policy on community banning. Here is a diff of the new change.[4] Before making the changes I solicited input in four venues: Wikipedia talk:Banning policy, WP:CN, WP:AN, and Wikipedia talk:Community noticeboard. Threaded discussion can be found at Wikipedia_talk:Community_noticeboard#.22Unclear.22_tag.3F. I sought discussion for eight days before taking action. DurovaCharge! 14:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

  • I've struck most of the change as instruction creep ("reasonable expectation of notification", "disruptive user may forfeit these expectations", "not obliged to wait"). Has the community ever issued topical bans as opposed to general ones? >Radiant< 14:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, and ArbCom upheld one on appeal. These points have been covered at the discussion on the talk page of this very messageboard, linked through my notice above. DurovaCharge! 15:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Speaking of which, with respect to reducing the complexity of policies, there may be merit in merging WP:BAN with WP:BLOCK. >Radiant< 14:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't know about that merge, they are very different things. The distinction is already too vague in my opinion. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 14:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Precisely my point. If the distinction is vague, then one page should clearly explain what it is. I'm not saying that blocking is the same as banning, obviously it's not, but they're related enuogh to be covered on one page, for the same reason that protection is on the same page as unprotection. >Radiant< 14:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Respectfully, Radiant, I really am disappointed that you responded to none of the several solicitations for input and then unilaterally altered policy counter to the discussion consensus immediately after the update got implemented. The new paragraph addresses reasonable concerns expressed at two different appeals to ArbCom where editors were blocked during community ban discussion and not notified of their ban discussion until after it had concluded, effectively denying them the means of defense. Additionally, the stipulation for uninvolved editors to decide on community bans has been at guideline level for half a year and was the most important provision in getting the proposal accepted as a guideline: partisan edit warriors shouldn't be empowered to railroad people out of the project. DurovaCharge! 14:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I'll add that, by selectively leaving some new material and deleting others, Radiant's diff amounts to a unilateral attempt to WP:OWN banning policy. If Radiant disagreed with the method used to garner consensus, the appropriate response would have been to revert the entire update. DurovaCharge! 14:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Get real, Durova, that someone disagrees with (part of) your edit has nothing to do with ownership (ad hominem is a fallacy, I'm sure you knew that). Policy pages are edited all the time by lots of people without "formal consensus gathering", and none of the links you cite point to any actual consensus gathering in the first place, just to lengthy talk pages where that gathering supposedly occurred. I hadn't noticed your earlier invitations, or I would have responded earlier. >Radiant< 15:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Please express your thoughts in less a less inflammatory manner than get real, Durova and refrain from accusing me of logical fallacies I have not committed. My objection in no way constitutes an ad hominem attack: it regards your actions, not you as an individual. As your question Has the community ever issued topical bans as opposed to general ones? reveals, you were unaware of recent precedents that affect the policy you altered. I did link directly to the threaded discussion that formed consensus on the policy and within that thread my posts provided other links to the relevant precedents, upon which I would have gladly expanded had you requested clarification. Alterations to policy are weighty edits and should not be made in ignorance. DurovaCharge! 15:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • WP:KETTLE, Durova, you're the one that started with the accusation of ownership (and now, of of ignorance, although you're apparently unaware that most policy pages are edited all the time by a lot of people, a process which is neither weighty nor formal). You linked to the top of four lengthy talk pages, and one thread about the purpose of this noticeboard. None of that demonstrates consensus for the change you made. Basically, you added a long paragraph that doesn't really say anything. >Radiant< 15:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear

Please have a look at this diff and Wikipedia:Community_noticeboard#Updated_community_ban_language_at_WP:BAN. We've got a problem on our hands. DurovaCharge! 14:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

  • No we don't, we have one editor (you) making a change to a policy, and another editor (me) undoing part of, but not all of, that change. Policies are edited all the time, so I fail to see the problem here. We could discuss the matter at the policy talk page, as is common for suggested changes to a policy; I'm not sure what this thread is doing here. >Radiant< 15:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
And the thread to the policy talk page has been open for eight days where you could have commented at any time, yet you acted without offering input and responded afterward to WP:CN. I initiated this thread here in order to notify people that the proposed changes had been implemented. It seemed like the responsible thing to do, particularly since it was the first time I had implemented a significant change at the policy level. Your reaction truly baffles me - it comes across as if you're itching for a fight. DurovaCharge! 15:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Like I said I was not aware of that thread, and apparently neither were most other people because it didn't see much participation. But you're really missing the point here:
    1. You don't need to announce policy changes; the normal wiki process governs.
    2. The policy isn't "set" because you discussed it at some place, it can be edited later on; the normal wiki process governs.
    3. You haven't actually linked to any major consensus building related to this change. Not that that's necessary, but you claim to have a strong consensus backing for your actions and this is not apparent.
    4. If people (e.g. me) disagree with an addition to policy, we discuss it on its talk page.
    5. Don't accuse people of WP:OWNership or of ignorance, per WP:CIV and WP:NPA.
  • >Radiant< 15:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't agree with this proposed change. The change to "consensus support among uninvolved users in good standing" will herald endless wikilawyering about what constitutes "involved," and in any event, just because someone may be "involved" doesn't mean their opinion should be discounted. If someone has been harassed by a user, for example, that person has a right to have their opinion carry weight without allegations that they're too "involved" to count. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Also, as has been pointed out many times, troublemakers often start harassing the admin who takes action against them, or an ArbCom member, so they can claim that admin or arbitrator is too "involved" to continue to deal with them. We should resist all such efforts. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Is it only the uninvolved users in good standing passage that earns your objection, Slim? That's been at guideline level for six months at WP:DE and was the key provision that garnered consensus support when that was at guideline level. As the talk page archives there demonstrate, it was the only effective safeguard against teams of partisan editors exploiting the community ban option to railroad good people out of the website. DurovaCharge! 15:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Durova, can you give one example of "teams of partisan editors exploiting the community ban option to railroad good people out of the website"? I've never seen it happen, though of course every user who's banned claims to be a good editor who was unfairly treated. Users who are banned indefinitely are almost always given warning after warning, usually from multiple admins. I've personally never seen any good editor (good in terms of content contributions or behavior) have this happen to them. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
What specifically does "in good standing" mean? --Milo H Minderbinder 15:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) To respond to SlimVirgin first, I'm not aware of a case where such railroading actually happened. The potential for that type of abuse got discussed extensively when WP:DE was at the proposal stage. Would you like me to cite specific posts and threads from those discussions? As long as community ban discussions were housed at WP:AN and WP:ANI the risk of that abuse was pretty low (although other problems attended holding them there). With the opening of WP:CN I've been active to reduce potential for that happening.[5] So far the community has handled this well, and I'm proud that it has, yet - let me know if you need more specifics than a general link to Wikipedia talk:Disruptive editing/Archive 1 - what's apparent to me from close involvement throughout the process is that the community has addressed this proactively. I don't really object to keeping that language at guideline level if consensus hasn't formed for advancing it: my impression had been that it was merited. Slim, is that your only objection to the edit I implemented this morning or are there other points you wish to raise?

And to Milo, in good standing here means the same thing it means at WP:AFD discussions or WP:RFA discussions: basically someone who has a meaningful edit history, isn't blocked or banned, and isn't a sockpuppet or meatpuppet. If we can presume that without explicit wording then I've no objection to deleting the phrase. DurovaCharge! 20:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Radiant, it's odd that you claim to have been unaware of a discussion that occurred on a page you edited while the discussion was open.[6] I have no wish to personalize a disagreement, nor do I wish to cast aspersions. I have exerted more than reasonable efforts to solicit discussion and consensus proactively, operated with maximum transparency, and promptly laid my actions before the community for scrutiny. My good faith should be evident and please assume it if you have doubts. Yet I must express very serious misgivings about the way you have conducted this matter: I do not accuse you of acting in ignorance - your own post announces it. And if you believe my efforts to solicit discussion were inadequate or improper, please revert to the entire prior policy version rather than your own customized version, which you have declared you composed without understanding the events that had necessitated an update. Also I again request that this discussion move forward in a less precipitate and "hot" manner. There are many other things on my to-do list and a conflict impedes progress in all of them. Let's take a deep breath, straighten this out, and work toward our shared goal of a reliable online encyclopedia. DurovaCharge! 15:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Durova, if you are unwilling to lay off the accusations I will not discuss this with you any further. I removed only the parts of your change to which I objected; I see no reason why I should remove parts to which I did not object. As I have pointed out several times already, policy is not edited by making formal proposals, but through the Wiki Process, which means organic editing until a compromise is reached. >Radiant< 16:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
    • It's done via consensus. Durova has demonstrated how the consensus was reached. Your lack of awareness or disagreement isn't an argument against it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Well duh. But he has demonstrated no consensus. Your insinuations are not a consensus. >Radiant< 16:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
        • What else do you need to see, then? --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
          • Here is an excellent example of why adding anything about "involved" editors would be a disaster. Basically, if you know anything about the user, your opinion wouldn't be taken into account. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm well aware of that, of course, since it was posted to my own user talk page. And I'm also aware (and sympathetic) that community banned editors recently targeted SlimVirgin with similar allegations in recent WP:RFAR requests. I've been targeted in the same way - see this example. It's taken some hard consideration to arrive at the conclusion I've reached: that it's simpler and easier for the community to identify such allegations as frivolous and disregard them as such than for the community to remedy deliberate railroading by a coterie of edit warriors (if policy explicitly allows such exploitation). I've little doubt that I'll take heat from time to time for being bold and impartial in the community's interests, yet any sysop who takes action in dispute resolution keeps a good wardrobe of flameproof suits for that purpose. If you see a way to close both methods of exploitation I'm all ears. I chose the lesser of two evils. DurovaCharge! 20:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

(outdent)It's unhelpful to accuse someone of a logical fallacy without being specific. Which part that statement do you interpret as a false dichotomy, and for what reason?

As examples of how it's fairly simple to deal with frivolous allegations of involvement, let's look at the two recent arbitration requests where SlimVirgin got targeted. First, the Arthur Ellis attempted appeal:

...It is also rather unfair that a community ban by admins and invited editors like Clyoquot, who also alse edit warred with Ellis and Slime Virgin on pages like Rachel Marsden, unlike an Arbcom process, allows permanent banning without anything resembling due process and without even informing the ban target that a ban is being considered or asking for his take on things or the reason why he feels wronged enough to act out in ways that are seen as vandalism.[7]

There's the reference to SlimVirgin: one insulting assertion with no supporting evidence. The attempted appeal ended in early closure. It was already on its way to rejection on its merits when I submitted a statement that linked to extensive vandalism, template abuse, and a user threat by the same IP addresses that had requested the review.

The BabyDweezil request has garnered more serious consideration and, as of this writing, there remains a chance that it could open. Yet this appeal at my talk page, which got cited at this discussion yesterday as an example of how an involvement claim could be gamed, turned out to be an honest misunderstanding that got resolved with an explanation. I'll quote that explanation in full here because it's also relevant here.

I wasn't going to reply to this, but a post at another user talk page that invoked my name leads me to change my mind: silence implies consent so I ought to speak up. This thread demonstrates a logical fallacy called proof by assertion. It's just a list of names with no reason whatsoever why any of their input should be discounted. BabyDweezil's own request for arbitration only offers evidence of a content dispute with one of them. We don't throw out votes just because someone issued a user block or made a comment at WP:AN.
That clause at WP:DE was designed to prevent cliques of POV edit warriors from railroading good people out of the project. Suppose there's a dispute at opera. Ten Arnold Schoenberg fans are trying to WP:OWN the article and say that Schoenberg is the greatest composer in music history. Then along comes a Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart fan who raises some WP:NPOV issues and tries to balance the coverage. The Schoenberg fans huddle together somewhere and decide to run this Mozart fan out of the project. They tag team him, heckle him, and goad him into a WP:3RR block. Finally the Mozart fan gets frustrated and commits an act of vandalism. That's where I come along. While I'm browsing the page I see the words I'd rather eat ten pounds of rancid warthog meat than listen to Schoenberg. So I click edit and type removed vandalism in my summary. About two weeks later the Schoenberg fans start a community ban thread on the Mozart dude and all ten of them support the ban. Well none of those ten votes count because those are the people who've been disputing with the Mozart guy all along. But my vote's valid and the fact that I reverted his edit doesn't make me involved. I was just performing routine housekeeping. The Mozart guy might accuse me of bias, but that claim carries no weight because I hardly ever edit that type of article and he can't read my mind. (My actual opinion is that I'd like to move Arnold Schoenberg from List of composers to List of cruel and unusual punishments, but that's beside the point). Even if I issued a block for vandalism on Mozart dude, I haven't been a party to his dispute, and it's perfectly valid for me to support or oppose at the ban discussion. Mozart guy can't drive out the sysop who issued the WP:3RR block on that basis either, unless Mr. Mozart can prove that the other admin had been part of the opera content dispute, and in that situation Herr Mozart could have opened an administrator conduct WP:RFC because sysops aren't supposed to issue a block to gain the upper hand in a quarrel.
I hope that clarifies the distinction. DurovaCharge! 05:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[8]

That explanation led to this polite response that had got it as the edit summary and further constructive dialog.[9][10]

I've worked intensively on community banning for months and followed most of the individual cases where community bans have happened since I consider it one of the more important long term developments in site administration and I'm committed to seeing it implemented fairly. These two examples where users misinterpreted the uninvolved requirement follow a pattern: either the user is reasonable, in which case he or she adjusts to feedback, or the user is unreasonable, in which case the protest can be disregarded. DurovaCharge! 15:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Updated wording

I agree that Durova's wording was overly wordy and complicated. What about something simple like: "A user who is the subject of a proposed community ban should be notified of the proposal and given the opportunity to respond." If someone really wants to, they can make a notification template for user talk pages. --Milo H Minderbinder 16:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with this. They can post on their talk page if they want their views to be taken into account. Otherwise, they'll turn the discussion into another platform for personal attacks. Bear in mind that editors subject to community ban will usually have had many last chances already. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I was talking about responding on their talk page. Do you really object to notifying users that there is discussion going on about a potential community ban? --Milo H Minderbinder 19:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
No, I have no object to their being notified at all. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
If there's any simpler way to express the gist of this I'm open to refinements. Regarding notification and defense, there can be situations where a disruptive user's participation renders notification all but impossible. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gundagai editors. And as for submitting a defense, sometimes a blocked editor is so problematic that the user page needs protection. Apologies in advance to participants who aren't sysopped: the example that springs to my mind is from a deleted user talk page.[11] So as I expressed before implementing my edit, two different factors deserve balanced attention: notification and defense where feasible in order to prevent one kind of exploitation (good editors getting railroaded), weighed against troublemakers who would exploit policy loopholes and try to tie the community's hands and prolong their own disruption. DurovaCharge! 19:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

What about ""A user who is the subject of a proposed community ban should be notified of the proposal and if blocked may respond on their own talk page." Or if necessary "...on their own talk page, unless their actions have caused it to be protected." --Milo H Minderbinder 19:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The second version of that looks pretty good. What about a situation like the anonymous Gundagai editor where the user never registers an account and edits through a variable IP range? DurovaCharge! 20:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • In that case the blocking summary could be used to point to the page where the ban is discussed. But we don't need to spell out contingencies for every single possibility; it's best to keep it simple. >Radiant< 08:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
As long as we don't create a situation where a well intentioned policy clause prevents the community from taking necessary action, I'm all for simplicity. DurovaCharge! 16:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Reverting banned users, and users who engage banned users

Two questions/propositions:

1. Reverting banned users: may vs will

The banning policy says, "Any edits made in defiance of a ban may be reverted to enforce the ban, regardless of the merits of the edits themselves". As the policy gives no leeway for them to post on Wikipedia pages anyway, shouldn't this language not contridict the rest of it and say "will be reverted" instead? Why indulge trolls and troublemakers? - Denny 20:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Why indulge people who are contributing positively, even if they've been a bit naughty in the past? I'll let you figure that one out for yourself, Denny. Grace Note 07:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Banned users have a process they can go through to get unblocked/returned... they can go to ArbCom or post to the unblock email list. But applying treatment of banned users unevenly is a problem. None of them should get special treatment over another... - Denny 15:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Oppose as will is too prescriptive, we are all volunteers and nobody can force us to make an edit we dont want to and to try and make such a prescriptive move is not good. I definitely think it should be left as may, SqueakBox 15:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
No one can force an edit, no, but having it be stated that it should be removed still doesn't mean that anyone has to. But it makes crystal clear that ban evasion is wrong and not to be endorsed... if someone chooses after to enable ban evasion by proxy/communicating with banned users on-wiki, that's their own issue for others to review after... - Denny 15:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Certainly in Brandt's case it was possible to identify his edits because he signed his name. All you will achieve is that he wont sign his name and you wont be able to prove it is him. Its your proposal to punish users who co-operate with banned users that I find so alarming, reminiscent of the Siberia that Grace refers to, SqueakBox 15:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Do you think banned users should be allowed to freely post? why? - Denny 16:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I dont think banned users should be free to edit. I think someone like Brandt should not be allowed to edit in the main spac3e but I do think in his case he should be allowed to comment on his article onits talk page and that of any afd's, drv's etc related to that one article. i also think that every case must be taken on its own merit when talking about edits outside the mainspace. At the end of the day Brandt can edit his talk page and so we cant under current policy completely silence his voice. thje ref he gavce me the other day after I asked if anyone had one was put in the article by me and not by him and I should not in a future) be punished for such an edit on the basis that it was co-operating with a banned user. We need to trust the judgement of our good faith editors, SqueakBox 17:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
You said, "someone like Brandt". Why does he get special treatment? there are thousands of banned users. Why give him magic rights no one else has? - Denny 17:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I am only aware of 2 banned editors who have their own article and my above statement only gives leeway to banned editors commenting on their own articles, SqueakBox 17:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Here's an example of why this would be a bad idea. User:Mike Church often begins one of his sockpuppets by making several positive contributions with it, so he can better hide the negative ones. I've been blocking a lot of his sockpuppets, but not reverting all of his changes -- it would make no sense to revert a positive contribution to an article just because of who made it or why. (Sometimes it annoys me that the "sockblock" template gives me no choice but to say "...and all your changes have been reverted" if I use it.) rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 18:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Strongly oppose. While, in general, banned users should be reverted, one shouldn't be excessively legalistic and Wikilawyering about it... zero tolerance is rarely a sensible policy anywhere. There will always be cases where it would be reasonable to make exceptions; one, in my opinion, is for banned users with a bio on this site commenting on the talk page of their own article, if they can do it without resorting to further bannable offenses such as legal threats; also, if a banned user happens to revert vandalism, it wouldn't make sense to force other usrs to restore the vandalism, would it? *Dan T.* 00:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

2. Engaging editors known to be banned - policy violation

I think that, given that some admins and users won't/can't enforce this policy even handedly, and give or don't give special treatment to users like Barbara Schwarz Schwartz and Daniel Brandt, who are both indefinitely banned... that the banning policy should be updated to reflect that such discourse be in and of itself a policy violation. I.e., if you see posts that are identified as by a banned/blocked user, the proper action is to remove it. Anything else is facilitating a banned user to cicumvent their ban. Posts to WP:RFAR would be exempt, so that they can appeal their blocks. Or they can email the unblock mail list. Or mail Oversight. Thoughts? We can't force people to block/ban/redact banned users... but if the policy states that engaging/interacting with them is an act of disruption, and bannable if ongoing... could help to close these personal loopholes that some allow banned users... - Denny 20:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

If only we could send them to Siberia... Grace Note 07:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Strongly oppose this is completely unacceptable and is an attempt to foce good will editors to act in a particular way. This is a bad suggestion that will only antagonize the already difficult situation on the Brandt and Schwartz Schwarz articles and suggests punishing good faith editors. Such a suggestion actualised would only harm wikipedia, SqueakBox 15:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Hey Squeak, we're not voting on policy changes. At any rate, Denny, you seem to be treating this overly much like a book of law, which it's not. >Radiant< 15:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I know, Radiant, I'm just frustrated by what seems to be some users giving certain banned users inappropriate free passes, even to the point where they threatened admin actions vs. them. do you think some banned users should get free passes? is it OK for them to be able to interact with the community even when banned? I don't understand why Brandt or Schwartz Schwarz for example are given magic rights others aren't. it makes no sense to me. - Denny 16:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Quote from Jean-Luc Picard: However... the excuse "I was only following orders" is the epitaph of too many tragedies in our history. Starfleet does not want officers who will blindly follow orders without analyzing the situation.--Kamikaze 16:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure Starfleet command also doesn't allow incarcerated prisoners to freely wander off from the penal colony, because some random Captain of a ship decided that the given prisoner should get a few minutes off-world to communicate and hang out... - Denny 16:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
What about when Captain Janeway took Tom Paris from prison cause she needed a pilot? HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 13:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Brandt is NOT a prisoner and nor should he in any way be treated as a criminal or law-breaker, SqueakBox 16:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I was replying to a silly ad hominem with another silly ad hominem... I never said Brandt was a law-breaker. But he is a rule breaker, and banned from Wikipedia. - Denny 17:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
As I mentioned on Brandts talk page, why can't they use OTRS or off-wiki? All they can do anyway is point out BLP vios/errors. why do they get magic ban evasion rights on-wiki? - Denny 17:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Strongly oppose. I see no reason to get so punitive... it only plays into the hands of some of our enemies that like to call us "fascist". *Dan T.* 00:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Denny, bans are generally taken to be preventive, not punitive. At least they were, in the days when they weren't simply ways of getting rid of one's enemies. But anyway, that's the theory. A bit of flexibility at the margin allows the possibility of rehabilitation. It should be considered a success if a bad user turns good, surely? Also, the focus has mostly been on behaviour rather than personality. We're not discouraging the person as such, we're discouraging the bad editing patterns. Many of Wikipedia's policies are at base edit focused rather than person focused. It doesn't make sense in that framework to scrub out good edits just to punish bad editors. And yes, I suppose it can be frustrating when banned people just won't stay banned, but they are not necessarily pursuing negative ends, and allowing some wriggle room keeps us (just barely) human. We can argue over the wriggle room -- on the one hand, I can see a strong argument for hardbanning everyone who contributes to Wikipedia Review (and I'd like to see Jimbo do it, given the disgusting treatment handed out to some of the valued contributors here), while on the other, I urge accommodating those who are trying to contribute positively here (which is, in the case of contributors such as Jon Awbrey, a petulant, whiny child, a losing proposition -- I guess I cannot help wanting the grievances of hurt people to be resolved) -- but I think it has a purpose, particularly given the belief in rehabilitation.Grace Note 05:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess I should be banned then, since I registered an account on Wikipedia Review, for the purpose of being able to comment directly when they talk about me. This precipitated a big debate over there over whether I should be banned from that site for being part of the "evil Wikipedia cabal". *Dan T.* 14:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
There is no cabal. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 13:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
You need to tell that to the wikipedia review not Dan. Banning people for off wikipedia activities is not acceptable, especially if we are talking about nothing more than contributing to another site, ie no attacks on wikipedia, its editors etc. The ramifications of such a proposal are terrifying, SqueakBox 16:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Allowing banned users to make comments on talk pages of articles about themselves

I would like to propose an edit to the current policy which will allow users (most obviously Daniel Brandt) who are banned and have articles about themselves on Wikipedia to be allowed to make civil non-abusive comments on the talk page of their article without being reverted. I would have thought that this would simply be common decency; however, others are choosing to wikilawyer about it. Thoughts? Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 20:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Would edits to other aspects on-wiki under their "name" be subject to the same, expected RVing? - Denny 20:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
No. Banned is banned, and for good reason. Editors are only banned after extensive conflict, allowing them to edit for any reason would force good editors to have to deal with users who have abused and harrassed them repeatedly. Also, there is no technical way to allow this, so you would either have to allow posts from unverified IP addresses which claimed to be the banned user, or to unblock the banned user's account and hope they only use it for the allowed purpose. People with complaints about the content of articles naming them can contact the Foundation by e-mail; the communications committee routinely reviews such complaints and posts valid ones to talk pages. Banned is banned. Thatcher131 20:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Question, Thatcher: Arbcom said before posting on behalf of banned people was a bad thing. Is reposting banned user's content AFTER someone RV'd it as a banned user posting by proxy then? I removed Brandt's stuff three times on his talk page today, and got reverted by different people each time... - Denny 20:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Um, pot->kettle, Zibiki Wym? Especially as it turned out that 4 of the accounts who were restoring Brandt's comments were sockpuppets of a banned user? I was probably wikilawyering with the best of them at 2 months. Let me check...yup, I was on Categories for deletion my second day and posting to AN/I at one month. Anyway this is all a distraction. The people who think that it's ok to let banned users make "reasonable" comments make the mistake of thinking that "banned means banned" is some kind of adherence to rules for rules' sake. Banned users are banned for good reasons and it is these reasons why tolerating or encouraging cracks in the dike is a bad idea. Thatcher131 01:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
The purpose of banning someone is to prevent them from damaging Wikipedia. If allowing a banned user to edit their own talk page does no damage, then what exactly are you trying to prevent? It's a matter of common human decency. Not allowing someone to make civil edits to their own article talk page is petty and vindictive. It serves no purpose to prevent it. Frise 01:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I think that common human decency requires that we consider the users who have been driven off Wikipedia or otherwise had their private lives invaded by Mr. Brandt. I think that such behavior damages Wikipedia greatly, and that tolerating comments by such users on talk pages, even nominally reasonable comments, is not only the camel's nose, but shows enormous disrespect for the distress that many good Wikipedians went through before the user was banned. I happen to think that entertaining such edits is offensive to good Wikipedians in the same way that giving a seat on the PTA activities planning committee to a person who had lost custody of their own children through abuse and neglect would be offensive to good parents. And I happen to think that the OTRS email system satisfies our duty to banned users quite well enough. Thatcher131 02:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
While appreciating your good intentions, as a "victim" of said page I think that keeping Brandt completely off wikipedia will only encourage him to add further wikipedians to the list, etc, whereas allowing him a little space on his own article might get him to calm down and possibly even persuade him to remove said page. Certainly both the "let him edit his bio talk page" and "dontn under any circumstances let him" are both motivated by a dislike of his hivemind page, SqueakBox 17:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
WP:DENY. - Denny 17:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
The problem with the PTA analogy is that the PTA can't do things which affect the lives of non-PTA adults--while the whole *point* of having a policy about biographies of living persons is that Wikipedia can affect non-Wikipedians by having articles on them. Any comparable PTA analogy would be a little contrived, but imagine a small town where the PTA both deals with children and also occasionally chooses a townsperson to kill, like a less random version of The Lottery. If the PTA was trying to kill someone, I'd think it's reasonable for them to be able to attend a PTA meeting whether they've been deprived of their children or not. Ken Arromdee 03:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I have checked with someone in OTRS and there are no outstanding complaints from DB. In any case, your experience points to the need for more OTRS volunteers, not to relaxing the banning policy. Thatcher131 02:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, absolutely. Any banned user who is the subject of an article needs to have the right to discuss his biography on the article's talk page. Only a particularly severe amount of invective should be cause for withdrawing this, and then only for limited times. It is blatantly unfair to have an article on someone while prohibiting that person from discussing his or her concerns about it. Everyking 07:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Other than Mr. Brandt, are there any users at all who are both banned and the subject of an article? It seems unnecessary to add a clause to policy for only a single instance. >Radiant< 10:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Maybe, but even if he's the only one now, future cases are bound to appear. Everyking 11:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Even if we are going to start making exceptions, I don't see why we want to start with Brandt. Gregory Kohs never set out to deliberately drive admins off of wikipedia and invade their private lives. Thatcher131 12:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Is this about being an impartial encyclopedia or is this about settling a score, Thatcher? Killa Kitty 13:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Besides, all those articles you mention about Kohs/Leyden/Wikibiz got deleted, so that's hardly a precedent for anything. My point is that I see insufficient instances of this happening to actually make a Rule for it; see also WP:CREEP. >Radiant< 12:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Living people who have biographies at Wikipedia and have never had an account and don't want to register one can and presumably do contact the Foundation with complaints. Mr Brandt already has an extra advantage as a user — he can contact any administrator through "email this user". Why do people talk about this as if leaving him banned means that he's 100% helpless with regard to inaccuracies in his article? ElinorD (talk) 10:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I gather, based on his own complaints, that people ignore him when he tries to contact them privately. By posting on the talk page he reaches a wider audience and makes it more difficult to ignore him. Furthermore, as the subject of the article Brandt is an invaluable resource, and instead of just demanding the article be taken down he has been making specific points about ways to improve the content lately, so I would argue that in the interest of creating a better article about him we should give him a voice. Everyking 11:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


Other banned editors with biographies are Derek Smart and Mark Bourrie. Smart was banned by ArbCom from Talk:Derek Smart; shall the community overturn that? Bourrie also considers himself a defender of Rachel Marsden, should he be allowed to post there as well? What about User:Richardmalter, who is the representative of Yoshiaki Omura and has been banned by ArbCom from all related articles and talk pages. Thatcher131 12:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

There's also Ashida Kim (though he just got ifdef blocked, not formally banned), Barbara Schwarz and Igor Bogdanov, who was banned by the Arbcom. So there's no lack of non-Brandt examples. - Ehheh 14:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't support this proposal. The banned user can email us, which is generally the more responsive pathway to such issues anyways. It's important to note that unless we screwed up, they should only be banned because of a history of harmful and/or disruptive behavior. If there isn't such a history we shouldn't make an exception to the ban, we should unban them. :) --Gmaxwell 13:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


NOTE: As stated on his User page, Zibiki Wym is Gregory Kohs. For full disclosure. - Denny 13:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I simply don't see why they can't contact us in a million other ways. The fact that he (Brandt) knows it will cause a proverbial storm each time he does this "in his name" means he's not out for changes, but to just troll. - Denny 13:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Zibiki Wym is Gregory Kohs. He's been community banned, so why the hell is he still posting? --Calton | Talk 15:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
apparently Jimbo unblocked him. Thatcher131 15:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
He recently (this week) posted on the MyWikiBiz talk page as MyWikiBiz. Why is he using this sock account now? Maybe a RFCU is in order? Didn't he have multiple socks before I saw/read? - Denny 16:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

What would this proposal accomplish that cannot already be accomplished via e-mails to the Foundation? BLP concerns are already a legitimate exception to the policy about proxy editing. DurovaCharge! 14:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Kohs, this is the talk page of Wikipedia's banning policy, not a forum for your personal grievances. I hope you become a productive and valued editor now that you have returned, but if you wish to pursue that particular matter further please do so via a thread at WP:AN or a request at WP:RFAR. Policy should be guided by general principles that apply to all relevant situations. The examples Mr. Brandt showed me were of requests that his entire article be deleted rather than of specific BLP concerns within the article. As for your own e-mail experience, please substantiate it with specific examples. Be aware also that either you or Mr. Brandt also could have followed up with an e-mail petition to an uninvolved administrator (we have over 1100 of them). DurovaCharge! 15:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
(Replied at editor's user talk page). DurovaCharge! 16:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Brandt posting HERE

See this where he accuses Thatcher of a legal threat. I am not going to remove this one myself as I don't feel like getting targetted more today. But this is a legal threat by a banned user on a page that is not an article on him. Why again are we suggesting a policy to give HIM alone a break currently when he obviously has no respect at all for us? - Denny 16:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I've semiprotected this talk page for a week. DurovaCharge! 16:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • If ever there was a perfect example of why banned means banned then that thread provides it. Brandt has, once again, goaded people into doing things that allow him to self-justify his behaviour. Enough already. In order to protect any further members of the community from being drawn into this dispute, and pushed into doing things that get them added to Brandt's stalking activities, all future communicaitons to and from Brandt should be handled exclusively through back-channels, with WP:OTRS the front-runner. Mr Brandt, if you are reading this, you know the email address, OTRS volunteers will be happy to help with correction of factual errors. On Wikipedia, WP:RBI applies. Guy (Help!) 17:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Banned is banned. He was banned for very good reasons. Allowing a banned user to edit talk pages is a very big mistake. He should not be allowed to edit at,all, for any reason. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 17:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm I really should explain my reasons. User's get banned only rarely, and when they do it is because they are damaging to the encylopedia. Brandt is certainly in that category. He is very bad news for anyone who gets on his wrong side. If he is allowed to edit the talk page, he will be interacting with people. Sooner or later ( well sooner, we know his MO) one of these people will say or do somthing that upsets him and he will go for them. We cannot allow that to happen. We must make it perfectly clear that he is not welcome here. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn}~
So instead of risking someone possibly pissing him off sooner or later, you're choosing to guarantee that he's pissed off right now. I'm not really seeing how that's the better choice. No one is saying that people should be forced to interact with him. Also, I don't think you have to worry about him thinking he's welcome here. Frise 19:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Ah. So you think that if Brandt, or any banned user for that matter, is allowed to edit an article talk page, and the other editors all have the wisdom and restraint to simply ignore him, that he will be happy with that outcome? Thatcher131 20:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Happy? Of course not. Happier? Almost certainly. But forget his happy level, because that isn't what this is about. We have a moral obligation to marginally-notable people who we place as the number one hit on a Google search. Many of these marginal subjects would go virtually unnoticed if we didn't use our search engine ranking to artificially boost their profile. Editors search the web looking for any tiny pieces of information on his life, some of it 40+ years old, that they can scrape together and put in his article. Regardless of how you feel about him personally, he must be allowed to voice his concerns in a civil manner in a place where people interested in his article may view them. It's our end of the bargain for placing people in the spotlight. Frise 20:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
He can voice his concerns to Danny, Brad or Jimbo. He has options. But he has been banned form Wikipedia. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 06:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Didn't Danny and Brad resign? I thought I saw that somewhere. Frise 07:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
So they did (shows how much attetion I pay to whats going on). Never the less. My point remains he can email someone else at the office. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 07:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Anyone have an idea how long it takes for an OTRS response? One possible problem is that an article might get scraped by any one of hundreds of sites while a complaint waits to be acted on. We can remove bad info from our own articles, but the bad version could be mirrored all over the net. We need to take into account realistically how long it takes to look into an OTRS problem. Frise 04:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I think Brandt has repeatedly shown that he will abuse any permission to post to Wikipedia and therefore he is, quite rightly, banned. Banned means banned, and for good reason. While editors are not obligated to remove his contributions, they are, IMO, obligated to not revert such removal. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
That may be the case but I dont believe it is policy right now. perhaps it should be? SqueakBox 23:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
(ec)No banned user, including Brandt, should be editing this page. IMO there may be a legitimate reason for him to edit the Brandt talk page but that must not extend to any other pages on wikipedia. You'll get a lot more support removing his comments outside his talk page methinks, Denny, SqueakBox 18:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

What about editing on their behalf (which his fans still do)? Shouldn't the action be only revert, block, "Go to OTRS," ignore? - Denny 23:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Very hard to prove someone edits on Brandt's behalf, and should only his supporters not be allowed to do this very hard to prove thing? Or should his enemise be stopped from doing so as well? Yanksox was desysoped for warring and incivility not for doing what Brandt has requested, and that's as it should be, SqueakBox 23:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I can't speak to Yanksox. he was desysoped, done issue. But if Banned User X says "Do this," and User Y does THAT, he edited as a proxy it is reasonable to assume. - Denny 23:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
That would imply you know the motivation of Y, and that is not reasonable to assume. For instance in my case I asked for a reference, ie it was me who wanted the reference. Who provided that reference has no relevance. Surely we generally are here to make a better encyclopedia not to enforce wikipedia policies. Brandt would use such a rule to create chaos. Meanwhile persecuting good faith editors for refusing to be policemen will see a rapid rot in wikipedia, SqueakBox 23:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Revert sub-policy needs an overhaul

The policy about reverting banned users' edits regardless of the merits of the edit needs an overhaul. It might be used to pass down vandalism to pages in the following way:

User A is a banned, but not blocked user. User B is a vandal. User C is the normal good Wikipedian.

User B vandalizes an article. User A sees it, and, breaking his/her ban, reverts the vandalism. What should User C do then? Revert to the vandalized version of the article? That is what comes from this policy, but it's clearly wrong. Or leave it as is? That is leaving a ban breaking unsanctioned. If we substitute User C for another vandal, he/she can revert to the vandal version without consequences! We need an exception for "obviously good edits, such as vandalism reverts", but at the same time we must make sure that the exception is impossible to abuse. Any ideas? —Preceding unsigned comment added by NetRolller 3D (talk • contribs) 12:28, April 2, 2007

The simple answer is that both users should be reverted, one for vandalism, and the other for violating a ban. Of course, if the last version not by either of them happens to identical to the version by the banned user, no "double revert" will be visible as it would often be a null edit.
If you see this happening often, you might ask whether the users are actually the same person. Consider this strategy:
  • Obsessive content edit by banned user's sockpuppet [12]
  • Page-blanking vandalism by banned user's other sockpuppet [13]
  • Vandalism revert by bot [14]
  • Anonymous revert of banned user's content edit (a month later) [15]
— CharlotteWebb 21:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Just because they can be reverted doesn't mean they're always reverted. Use some common sense. >Radiant< 09:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

How do you request to ban a user?

I am thinking about banning Misteroonova for excessive vandalism. On what page do I request a user to be banned? Mewtwowimmer 02:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of text from WP:BAN#Community ban

The sentence "Community bans must be supported by a strong consensus and should never be enacted based on agreement between a handful of admins or users." was in the original text (as of 02:17, 7 November 2006) of WP:BAN#Community ban.

The latter half, "and should never be enacted based on agreement between a handful of admins or users", has just been deleted (as of 03:16, 16 April 2007), without discussion here.

The edit summary reads: Remove part about "enacting"; this contradicts the very first sentence of this section, and creates a false dichotomy with de jure notions that are contrary to what consensus is.

This may be related to Wikipedia talk:Community sanction noticeboard#Comments moved from a ban proposal regarding "what is enough discussion to close?" (paraphrased, not direct quote), where this editor claimed: "Any uninvolved intelligent good-faith person can enact a community ban"....

I would like to know whether this policy change has consensus support, since it was not discussed. -- Ben TALK/HIST 17:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Given that a user can be indef blocked pending discussion, is there any downside to requiring a slower process that requires greater input? Requiring greater input might have the practical effect of limiting bans to people who have so inflamed others that a large number of other people care, but, in light of the availability of lesser sanctions, is this a real problem? It would seem reasonable to limit what can be done by quick administrative action to blocking, and to require something more deliberative and with more broad-based input for banning. Best, --Shirahadasha 21:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
It's already limited by saying that there must be "strong consensus" and "consensus of community support". Using the word "handful" is meaningless; there does not need to be a supra-handful vote for a community ban, and depending on the situation a handful is excessive (think obvious vandalism/long-term abusers) or insufficient (think long-term established user with a good track record). —Centrx→talk • 03:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Either we eliminate the difference between an indefinite block and a ban, or we keep the requirement that a ban have some significant input to it. It was recently proposed at the community noticeboard that we mass endorse all old indefinite blocks as bans, and the community said "no thanks". The last community discussion was opposed to this, so I believe this edit was against existing consensus, with no rationale offered. Go ahead and correct it. GRBerry 01:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
The rationale is in the edit summary, and the sentence and the whole section was added to this page without discussion. —Centrx→talk • 03:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
The sentence and the whole section was added without discussion. This part a) contradicts the first sentence of the section, which defines a community ban in terms of an indefinite block that no one will undo; and b) belabors a point that is alternatively plain wrong or unclear: a "handful" of people are usually all there is making a community ban, and all that is in fact necessary, and the point about consensus is already emphasized elsewhere, that the admin should "be sure that there is a consensus of community support for the block" and "Community bans must be supported by a strong consensus". —Centrx→talk • 03:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
"The sentence and the whole section was added without discussion." -- All together, on November 7, 2006, and sat there 5 months without anyone objecting, demonstrating stability and consensus acceptance. Now you delete it, and immediately this gets objections, so it's clear it doesn't have consensus acceptance. Let's revert to status quo ante, the 5-months-stable consensus version. -- Ben TALK/HIST 03:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
The point is not that whatever notion is supposed to be intended by it is a bad idea, but that in the form it is here it sprang forth one day from one person's mind and it so happens that it is self-contradictory and uses language that is otherwise never found in policy pages. —Centrx→talk • 03:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Then why not discuss better phrasing, since apparently no-one else in the past five months thought of any? Heaven knows a lot of Wikipedia's policies use language not normally seen in off-wiki policies, so you've got a great project ahead of you. -- Ben TALK/HIST 08:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  • The meaning of the phrasing is already included elsewhere in that same section; it is superfluous. If you think some other wording should be added, add it.
  • This wording is not used in other on wiki policies. It is wording that is often found in off wiki policies, but it is not appropriate for Wikipedia. —Centrx→talk • 20:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why it's needed. It's redundant since a strong consensus isn't going to be just a handful of editors. --Minderbinder 12:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Under the usual sense of "consensus" (as active approval resulting from a group discussion) you're right. When Centrx says "Any uninvolved intelligent good-faith person can enact a community ban", a group discussion doesn't seem to be part of the process.

Wikipedia also uses "consensus" in a passive sense, in the context of page-editing: see WP:BRD, where one person can just go make a change on a page and -- if no-one reverts it -- then its stability is deemed to have shown "consensus".

Oddly enough, Centrx doesn't grant "consensus" status to this 5-months-stable policy, because "it sprang forth one day from one person's mind" -- but his statement, italicized above, would let a whole "community ban" just "spring forth one day from one person's mind"... as long as that one person is "uninvolved intelligent good-faith".

Imagine the possibilities of that. You and I are "uninvolved intelligent good-faith", of course, so either of us can just add people's names to WP:BANNED without discussion, and if no-one notices for a while, we've just "enacted community bans". They can't do the same to us, because of course they are not "uninvolved intelligent good-faith", otherwise they wouldn't have been banned, would they? (Besides which we'll revert their edits if they haven't been blocked.) That's the flexibility of "uninvolved intelligent good-faith"; there's no objective measure; "we" fit it, "they" don't. Wheel Wars, part II, anyone?

The "never by just a handful" clause argues against applying that page-editing sense of "consensus" to community bans.

An actual quorum number, percentage of agreement, forum location, and duration of discussion, would be clearer and more specific than "handful", but at least "handful" points the way to something determinable.

When just three people (a "handful") agreed to ban Instantnood ("administrators Seraphimblade, Mangojuice, and Aldux agree that an indefinite ban is called for"), they did so as an admin enforcement of his ArbCom probation, not as a "community ban"; the open hearing had already been held, and the terms of his probation set, well before this ban for its violation resulted. These three were acting as probation officers, not as judge and jury.

But what if a "handful", or one person, could enact an actual "community ban" as well, no public discussion or active approval by a wider group required? And what if you're not that one person, but one of those he "bans"? -- Ben TALK/HIST 18:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not going to read this. You can start by explaining in just a few sentence why this phrasing should be included. —Centrx→talk • 20:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
The "short version", 4 sentences, would be the 1st, 2nd, and 5th paragraphs. -- Ben TALK/HIST 04:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Restored version that had been here for 5 months

With due respect to Centrx's concerns, I have restored the version of community ban language that has been up for nearly half a year. Community banning in its present form developed concurrently with the Wikipedia:Disruptive editing guideline and much of the discussion regarding these standards can be found at the guideline's talk archive. Essentially what this week's disagreement did was attempt to revive a historical version of the community ban concept that doesn't jibe with current practice. Any sysop can impose an indefinite block under the right circumstances, but ample precedent at the WP:CSN archives now distinguishes community bans from indefinite blocks. If a contradiction appears to exist in this policy, resolve it elsewhere. --Durova 02:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not operate on precedent and this section was not added as a result of Wikipedia:Disruptive editing, which Jossi has never even edited, and the fact remains that the clause contradicts the rest of the section, contradicts common practice, and does not use language appropriate for a Wikipedia guideline. Wikipedia:Disruptive editing is a new, ancillary page that is irrelevant to whether a user is banned. —Centrx 04:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
This text doesn't describe current practice and is fundamentally incorrect. A community ban is a block that not one of 1200 administrators will undo, not the outcome of some myopic process on an ill-frequented noticeboard. How far has this business gone? Centrx is absolutely right here. Mackensen (talk) 02:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely. if no admin will undo then you are essentially banned. (note that arbcom and jimbo can be considered admins here) —— Eagle 101 02:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
The point is that it is harmful to have instruction creep that is not useful to the language of the policy, but instead can easily be gamed. We don't need any more ruleslawyers getting unblocked because there was some (undefinably) small number of assenters. All pages like AN and CN are necessarily some small segment of the community, not the community incarnate. We don't deal with that shortcoming by giving vaguely-worded free passes. A community ban is an indefinite block that stands. Otherwise you are asking for problem users to get unblocked because "they're not banned" rather than because the block is wrong. I agree with the change. Dmcdevit·t 03:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Soon, I think, at least "sooner rather than later", we'll have to do something about these ridiculous little fiefdoms that keep springing up. --Tony Sidaway 03:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Could you further qualify your fiefdom comment, I don't get it. Navou banter 12:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
(Reply to Dmcdevit) - Ah, by that standard if anyone chooses to unblock them, they never were banned in the first place, only indefinitely blocked. So the issue you present doesn't exist. It is impossible to tell if an indefinite block is a ban on that standard until Wikipedia ceases existence. And at that point the issue is quite moot. GRBerry 12:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, pretty much. I wrote that wording "if not one of our 500 1000 1200 admins will unblock". The idea is it's for people who are clearly wasting our time and theirs. The ArbCom reinforced this by rejecting some cases saying "look, just block the idiot." So a community ban is a VERY strong ban indeed - arguably stronger than an ArbCom ban. The last community ban I recall the leadup to was Jon Awbrey, with whom the last straw was when he tried wikilawyering the definition of wikilawyer - David Gerard 21:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Er, yes...? If they're unblocked then they are not banned. In that case, it is usually common to take the matter to arbcom to decide if a ban is really appropriate. I don't understand how that logic takes you to "It is impossible to tell if an indefinite block is a ban on that standard until Wikipedia ceases existence." Presumably an unblock by a conscientious admin will occur after discussion. If you dispute the ban, then raise the issue, and if consensus doesn't exist an admin will unblock, overturning the ban. Or is this just a semantic argument? Dmcdevit·t 21:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Disruption?

Apart from the disruptrion, the arbcom bans users because they are fed up with a problem e.g. a percieved WP:COI, not only because of disruptive edits. I have repeatedly requested diffs that show that I make disruptive edits to members of the arbcom, but they were not produced. In contrast my editing was described by the arbcom on the subject on which I received a topic-ban as "generally responsible." See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2/Workshop#Andries.27_editing_privileges_restrictedWikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2/Workshop#Editing_by_Andries Andries Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2/Proposed_decision#Andries.27_editing_privileges_restricted. Also read what user:Bishonen wrote at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2/Proposed_decision#Proposals_to_ban_Andries_for_responsible_editing

"The proposed finding of fact about Andries editing the SSA article states that "His edits to Sathya Sai Baba (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) are generally responsible, requesting verification rather than aggressively deleting or reverting." [1] Nevertheless, quite draconian remedies has been proposed against Andries editing of the page: a year-long page ban and an indefinite page ban, both of them supported by some of the same arbs who supported the finding of fact that Andries is and has been editing responsibly"

Andries 22:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Community ban section is instruction creep

Chapter 1

Currently, point #1 under "The decision to ban a user can arise from various sources" is This is sufficient. The rest, meaning that new section that cropped up much later, in December is unnecessary instruction creep. The first two sentences of the section repeat what is already said earlier, the rule about listing it a noticeboard is common sense for all potentially controversial admin actions, is unnecessary for uncontroversial ones, and is already implied in the earlier language which mentions consensus (which happens at such discussions). The rules about the block log and WP:BU are more unnecessary procedure, that in any case belong in a footnote, not a policy page. Saying it needs consensus again at the end is, again, repetitive. We should get rid of the "Community ban" section entirely, as sufficiently covered already, without the red tape and repitition. Dmcdevit·t 03:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that the decision to ban is moving away from the community, and more so into admin hands. Do we need to list these re-wordings at more places to gather consensus for change? Navou 10:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • What makes you think so? Radiant! 10:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I am not an administrator. But, if an admin blocks a party, and the most part of the admin populace misses the block, due to no review, does this imply ban. Now current policy/practice allows for a 24 hour block on simple 3RR I believe. Now if this were placed indef by someone, is that a ban. One would say no, it needs to be undone. If the blocked editor does not protest (unblock template) and the block goes unnoticed, then is this a ban? Common sense would say no, but it at least needs discussion to ensure this scenario (extreme for examples sake) does not happen. I do not like bureaucracy, but let us be fair to the editors. There needs to be a review process in place.
Also, for this policy to be changed, I would at least list this discussion at VP policy, relevent talk pages, AN and ANI, before reverting from the stable version. Navou 12:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • No, it does not imply a ban. There are a variety of ways in which the editor can draw greater attention to his predicament. At any rate I believe the intent was not a major change but a removal of perceivedly redundant wording. Radiant! 13:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Chapter 2

I have also restored an earlier version as I do not think this has been discussed or has enough visibility currently to get consensus for policy change. Navou 10:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
While I agree instruction creep is bad, there needs to be an inlet for community voice. I understand where 1000+ administrators will not unblock, what if 1000+ editors wish an unblock. There needs to be some discussion in this area. Navou 10:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • That's a rather extreme hypothesis. Point in fact is that if nobody can be found willing to unblock a user, then that user will not be unblocked. You cannot force people to do otherwise. If no single admin can be convinced by those 1000+ editors, then arguably those 1000+ editors are wrong, but at any rate no rules you impose will change this. Radiant! 10:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • The community chose every single administrator. That, in itself, represents significant commmunity input. Mackensen (talk) 11:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
While I agree, some choose not to be administrators, and choose not to participate in RFA. Does the lact of participation necessarily negate the voice? Navou 12:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The anti-WP:CSN party was Bold and undid the five-month-old version; okay. This was reverted back to the five-month-old version; okay. Now comes the time to discuss, not revert back to the new version. See WP:BRD. The five-month-old (and for five months stable) version should stay in place until discussion is complete. I'm restoring the 02:28, 20 April 2007, version by Durova. Now please discuss and resolve the matter by consensus before changing it again. -- Ben 12:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Also note the prior discussions above, #Deletion of text from WP:BAN#Community ban and #Restored version that had been here for 5 months. -- Ben 12:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

  • We have parties now? :confused: Radiant! 12:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • What, you missed the primaries? -- Ben 12:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Are you trying to strengthen your argument or just annoy other users? Be honest now... — CharlotteWebb 12:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

No parties, just a group of editors discussing a change in policy. But if elected... I promise... :P Navou 12:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

With s sub-group repeatedly deleting text from WP:BAN#Community ban; see the prior discussions and the page history. -- Ben 13:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • It's generally not helpful to think of editors as parties or factions. Just a thought. Radiant! 13:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Chapter 3

Reading DmcDevit's proposed version again:

The Wikipedia community, taking decisions according to appropriate community-designed policies with consensus support, or (more rarely) following consensus on the case itself. If one out of 1,182 is unwilling to unblock a user, the user can be considered banned.

This does seem like all we need in the policy. Attempting to list all banned editors would be counter-productive, really. If someone comes back and promises to be good we'll consider it on its merits and having a formal "ban" list would get in the way of that.

Having Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard has led to editors bringing people they've been in dispute with an trying to get them banned instead of resolving their problems. It has also led to attempts to formalize the ban process, which is bad for Wikipedia because it makes it harder for us to deal with our mistakes when you have a long list of people conducting a "hanging vote" and wrongly expecting their voices to mean as much as a single voice that may point out extenuating circumstances, or a serious error in the proposal indicating that the editor is not responsible for the problems.

The short version of the policy gives us all the banning powers we need, it doesn't get in the way of review, and it leaves us lightweight and maneuverable. The long version is simply instruction creep and introduces numerous undesirable factors. --Tony Sidaway 14:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Is anyone other than Ben disputing Dmcdevit's revision? Mackensen (talk) 14:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Concurrent with the present thread, Navou restored the five-months-stable version before I did. Durova had done so before that, and has returned to speak for herself. -- Ben TALK/HIST 23:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
See also Seraphimblade's pragmatic questions below. -- Ben TALK/HIST 02:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Chapter 4

Are you seeing my points? Navou banter 16:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Your concern seems to be "community voice". While it is an incorrect assumption that administrators and the community are somehow distinct groups, there is a bigger problem with that claim. Read that first sentence again: "The Wikipedia community, taking decisions according to appropriate community-designed policies with consensus support, or (more rarely) following consensus on the case itself." I don't see where the concerns are justified. Administrators are administrators because we trust their judgment; that doesn't mean we are content to give any sole admin bannning powers based on their personal opinion, or even the whole body of admins. One of the things that makes good judgment is gauging and responding accordingly to consensus: if there is substantial reasoned support for a blocking or unblocking, an admin will carry out the community's decision. What exactly is the problem with that? In fact, I might even say the "If one out of 1,182 is unwilling to unblock a user, the user can be considered banned." sentence, which you removed, is unnecessary. Dmcdevit·t 17:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
If I have misunderstood your argument, forgive me. I do not take admins as different than editors, all the same. But I understand that administrators are acting on consensus, then how will they act without a forum for consensus gathering. Again, forgive me if I am being obtuse. Navou banter 17:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't think I've suggested there should be no forum for consensus gathering. To me "following consensus on the case itself" implies that a discussion is necessary for non-obvious case. All blocks that might be controversial should be submitted for review. Dmcdevit·t 17:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Who determines "obvious" vs "non-obvious" or "controversial"? If a case is never reviewed, how can you ever be sure? But if every case is reviewed, the community response will answer that question. -- Ben TALK/HIST 23:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Chapter 5

Just a note on semantics: In Dmc's version, it should of course not say: If one out of 1,182 is unwilling to unblock, but: if none out of 1,182 is willing to unblock. The other version would, understood literally, lead to a rather extreme rule that was certainly not intended, was it? Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Oops, yes. Not sure where that wording crept in; I guess I didn't look to closely at the version I copied. Dmcdevit·t 21:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Just for clarification, and so we can write changes into the policy if there is consensus, could you copy your proposed wording here. I don't want to have misunderstood. But lets see what we are talking about. Navou banter 22:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
It's quoted twice above. Adjusting for User:Future Perfect at Sunrise's correction, it reads:

The Wikipedia community, taking decisions according to appropriate community-designed policies with consensus support, or (more rarely) following consensus on the case itself. If not one out of 1,182 is willing to unblock a user, the user can be considered banned.

And this is basically junking the recent changes to policy, restoring the older, simpler version, rather than making a "new" policy. --Tony Sidaway 03:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
But in eliminating the community sanction noticeboard, you're eliminating the forum where "The Wikipedia community [takes] decisions... following consensus on the case itself" -- which makes that remaining sliver of policy a nullity. -- Ben TALK/HIST 23:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Chapter 6

(outdent) I've been offline for a few days and got a request to comment here. First what I'd like to point out is that community banning is a developing area of Wikipedia. Recent precedents at WP:CN and appeals to the arbitration committee have established the community's ability to do other things besides full sitebanning - for example topic banning - and the developing consensus has been that an editor who's been banned by a consensus discussion would appeal the ban through a similar consensus discussion. Achival of community bans is necessary in order to reference these precedents and partly toward that end the WP:CN board was created. Also, several people who have already been indef blocked have been put through the community ban process in order to formalize their status, mainly because they continued to edit war through sockpuppets at particular pages and the editors who had been tending those pages found it easier to establish a formal siteban so that they wouldn't be liable for 3RR blocks when they maintained the pages. I didn't necessarily support those formality bans, but consensus discussions have consistently upheld that distinction, so yes there is a difference between what community banning means today and what it meant half a year ago. On a practical level I don't mind the distinction: if any sysop wants to lift the one year block I imposed on PatPeter then go ahead, but I'd very much prefer to see a formal unban discussion take place before Arkhamite were to return. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Nathanrdotcom for an example of why it isn't such a good idea to relegate unbanning to any sysop's unilateral decision.

To the best of my understanding, the current move to revert community ban language to the version from half a year ago springs from a couple of sysops' opinions about a single case: the status of Daniel Brandt. Overwhelming consensus at WP:CN was formalizing his status into a community ban when someone made a unilateral declaration that the action was outside the scope of that board and, shortly thereafter, the current dispute at this policy arose. In general it is a bad idea to alter policy in pursuit of any narrow goal. The people who now want to alter the stable version of this policy have had minimal involvement in community banning developments over the past half year and appear to be unaware of the reasons why most of the current practice has developed. If anything, the policy language needs to be updated rather than rolled back.

I consider a stable, fair, and reliable community banning process to be one of the more important developing aspects of Wikipedia for the following reason: Jimbo and the Arbitration Committee already operate pretty much at capacity, yet the site keeps growing. The only way this site can keep up with the need for certain types of sanctions is to have an equitable system to impose community bans. The ad hoc approach simply isn't scalable. --Durova 18:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Chapter 7

This is nothing more or less than a long plea to entrench unnecessary instructions in our already quite adequate banning policy. Wikipedia policy is policy as it is enacted on Wikipedia, not whatever tripe has words have been written in this document. If you can persuade the administrators to jump all the hoops that have recently been written (without much discussion that I can see) into this policy document, then it will become Wikipedia policy. Othewise it makes more sense to restore it so that it accurately reflects actual policy. --Tony Sidaway 19:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Above you've agreed that policy should retain the provision that "The Wikipedia community [can take] decisions... following consensus on the case itself." The CSN is the forum for discussing such cases and reaching such consensus, in accordance with that provision. -- Ben TALK/HIST 23:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Please refactor that statement in an appropriately civil manner. Durova 19:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I've replaced "tripe" with "words". --Tony Sidaway 21:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I have to say I agree with Tony here. You haven't really addressed any of the concerns I and others raised. In fact, "several people who have already been indef blocked have been put through the community ban process in order to formalize their status" is, for lack of a better word, nonsense and makes me question whether you know what a ban is. If people are edit warring with sockpuppets, clearly that's already blockable behavior. More importantly though, if someone's already indefinitely blocked without any objection, they are banned. You want "formal" unban discussions as opposed to... the "informal" discussions we normally have for any contested block? What's the difference? There's nothing about a Community Noticeboard discussion that is more or less "formal," and, indeed, I am inclined to believe that an insular, vote-ridden Quickpoll faction is less valid as a mechanism for discussion of bans. As for the bulk of your comments: I haven't had any involvement or interest in the recent Brandt discussions (and the aspersions are unwelcome); it is indeed in order to get rid of these unnecessary constraints that I'm here, I don't know what you mean by saying it isn't scalable with no reasoning; yes, community bans are necessary and important, again, that's why your proposed constraints are unhelpful; er, any more red herrings? I'm asking, what abour "The Wikipedia community, taking decisions according to appropriate community-designed policies with consensus support, or (more rarely) following consensus on the case itself. If not one out of 1,182 administrators is willing to unblock a user, the user can be considered banned." is inadequate? Dmcdevit·t 20:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
The community sanction noticeboard is where "The Wikipedia community [takes] decisions... following consensus on the case itself." If you agree with the "consensus decision" provision, why eliminate the forum for discussing the case and reaching that consensus decision? -- Ben TALK/HIST 23:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Durova, you're dead wrong here. A "community ban" is when someone has so exhausted people's patience that no-one will unblock them. The idea that the community noticeboard can vote on such bans and require anyone to care is completely spurious - Wikipedia considers formalising lynch mobs a bad thing. You can't vote people banned. You might be able to vote them unbanned, but it'd take some doing.
Just because someone creates a page and puts a process on it does not obligate anyone to follow it. This especially applies when it's essentially a process to bless a lynch mob - David Gerard 21:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
"Lynch mob"? That's one huge slam at all the people who've participated on WP:CSN, and I don't think they (or I) deserve it. For myself, I'd like to know exactly where, when, and how anything I've said merits the accusation. With diffs, please. -- Ben 02:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
It's not so much individual behavior, as the very premise of the page and its associated processes. Which is why we're deprecating them here. We don't (or shouldn't) hold votes to ban people. That, if it were the only thing that ever happened on the page, would merit the name "lynch mob". --Tony Sidaway 04:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
"The Wikipedia community [takes] decisions... following consensus on the case itself." But if it actually has any discussion of the case to reach that discussion, you denounce it as a "lynch mob"? So much for any "community" role in making "community ban" decisions. "If people cannot rule themselves, have they angels in the form of kings to rule them?" -- Ben TALK/HIST 23:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Chapter 8

(Outdent) Hang on a second. Just because I report on a consensus decision doesn't mean I agree with it. The objections Dmcdevit raises are precisely the ones I raised at WP:CN when these discussions first came up. Wish you had been there participating at the board, and I also wish you read my post here more carefully and with better faith about my understanding and judgement.

Both sides of this discussion have been talking at cross-purposes. What concerns exactly would you like me to address? From my perspective, most of the points that I might address are self-evident from a review of the CN archives, which editors who want to change policy ought certainly to have analyzed for themselves. I would like to see some attempt to address the relevant points I and others have raised. For example, the Nathanrdotcom case was a direct result of the pitfalls of the old system: a single administrator unblocked an account that almost certainly would not have been unbanned at a consensus discussion and a very sensistive arbitration case became necessary to correct that mistake. This drive to roll back the calendar half a year would remove the safeguards that now exist to prevent that sort of problem from happening again. Another point that deserves mention is how the old system elevated sysops to a privileged position and deprived other Wikipedians of any meaningful voice in the process. That practice ran counter to the spirit of this website.

If I saw a sustained and well-reasoned commitment to the community sanctions process among the senior Wikipedians who participate at this discussion I would be less disappointed. What happened a month ago at the WP:DE guideline, and what I see happening again here, is that some very serious hard work got overridden by a few people who came in like bulls in a china shop and left others to clean the mess they created. Not one of the people who changed that guideline has participated here, a case where the arbitration committee is on the verge of setting a very exploitable precedent through inaction and where I have given evidence solely in the interest of preserving the integrity and fairness of a guideline clause that I object to, and that was altered into its current form over my strenuous objections by people who impugned my integrity and understanding and who failed to follow through on the repercussions of what they called common sense.

It's an interesting dynamic: gut the safeguards that made community sanctions a workable process, stand by idly while ArbCom relegates manipulation of a siteban discussion to something no more serious than manipulation of an AFD discussion, then declare community sanctions to be mob justice and disempower the community. Reinstate all the potential liabilities of another Nathanrdotcom debacle (or worse) and place useful developments such as community topic banning in limbo, all for what purpose? There are several possible solutions to the Daniel Brandt situation and this is one of the worst.

One of the regulars who's been running WP:CN wrote me overnight to say that he's leaving Wikipedia. Not only do I not blame him, I am myself very close to abandoning the community sanctions process in protest. DurovaCharge! 19:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Chapter 9

You keep referring to "editors who want to change policy". I don't want to change policy, I just think it would be nice if this policy document reflected actual policy and practice on Wikipedia. Community sanction noticeboard is an interesting experiment, but the wording you are defending on this document is incredibly prescriptive and does not, in fact, reflect Wikipedia policy. A number of experienced Wikipedians, including at least one current arbitrator and and two ex-arbitrators, keep saying this, but you don't seem to have taken it on board. --Tony Sidaway 19:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Policy was stable for five months and was reasonably accurate. Now a handful of people are essentially saying that was never a legitimate update, although they fail to explain why it took so long to raise these objections or why they did not participate in the intervening consensus discussions where practices changed. These objectors have reverted to a version that is seriously out of alignment with current practice. If you would like to retain the community's ability to do such things as topic banning (which ArbCom has specifically empowered the community to do), please explain how that fits within the old policy version. If WP:CSN is nothing more than a straw poll and mob justice, please state so plainly and delete it without further ado so I can dismantle WP:CEM which the board was also designed to support. Then, when community bans are no longer logged or archived in one coherent location, I hope the community will relieve me of the obligation to slog through the archives of WP:AN and WP:ANI next time I refer to one of those discussions as precedent. You are all most welcome to slog for yourselves. I will gladly redirect my volunteer energies into less frustrating directions and those arbitration committee members can resume burdens that I and others have striven for half a year to relieve from their shoulders via a fair and equitable community process. DurovaCharge! 19:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
No you're getting away from the problem here. The current version of the community ban section, which is disputed by the overwhelming majority of people in this discussion, says:
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 Wikipedia:List of banned users (under "Community"). Community bans must be supported by a strong consensus and should never be enacted based on agreement between a handful of admins or users. The community may impose either topic bans or general editing bans.
Now the part up to should be sure that there is a consensus of community support for the block is okay and describes nothing more or less than Wikipedia policy. The rest is just weird little ruritanian procedure somebody made up, and has no authority as policy, simply because it doesn't adequately describe the formation of community bans on Wikipedia. It's ridiculously prescriptive and a recipe for wikilawyering. --Tony Sidaway 20:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Getting community consensus for a community ban "describes nothing more or less than Wikipedia policy." -- Yes, it describes the present (and five-months-stable) policy.

"The rest is just weird little ruritanian procedure somebody made up" -- The rest specifies where the community discusses cases to reach consensus: one stable forum, the community sanction noticeboard.

"and has no authority as policy" -- Ooh, ooh, next time I want to simply blow off any rule I don't like, I'll borrow that phrasing.

"simply because it doesn't adequately describe the formation of community bans on Wikipedia" -- There are entries on WP:BANNED that cite WP:CN, so it describes those bans' formation very accurately.

"It's ridiculously prescriptive" -- It describes exactly where and how these community bans have been reached. See the WP:CN archives if you don't believe me.

"and a recipe for wikilawyering." -- I'll refrain from comment. -- Ben TALK/HIST 00:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Chapter 10

Okay then, let's go through this with bullet points:

  • ...and should note the block on the Community sanction noticeboard as part of the review process I agree this wording is problematic, since this implies that a community ban is unilateral action by fiat and the community's only function is to review. This wording fails to address how non-sysops can (and often do) propose community bans and recommends a preemptive solution that hampers the subject's ability to provide adequate defense. Of course, sometimes circumstances necessitate urgent action, but whenever feasible it's simpler and more dignified to allow the discussion's subject to participate directly at the discussion rather than via some alternate solution (templates have reposted statements that blocked editors have posted to their user talk pages).
  • That it is a community ban should be noted in the block log, and the user should be listed on Wikipedia:List of banned users (under "Community"). Part of this puts the cart before the horse: it's inconsistent to make a block log note announcing the outcome of a community discussion that - per the policy's current language - would not yet have taken place and which might not endorse the action. A template at the user page afterward is usually sufficient. The rest is perfectly ordinary: other types of bans get logged so why not community bans as well? If anything, recent developments in community banning enhance the importance of logging these actions. For example, this interesting precedent probably ought to be on that list but isn't - it's a good example of a commonsense community solution to a legitimate problem that, until recently, would have had little option other than full arbitration.
  • Community bans must be supported by a strong consensus and should never be enacted based on agreement between a handful of admins or users. This helps ensure that community bans are well-founded and equitable.

So I'm not sure how you base that blanket objection. Do you wish to assert that the arbitration committee lacks authority? DurovaCharge! 21:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Chapter 11

"Do you wish to assert that the arbitration committee lacks authority?" is an absolutely absurd loaded question with no relevance here, and quite insulting to ask of me, David and Charles, all former or current arbitrators, disagreeing with you here. Please stop invoking the Arbitration Committee as a reason for your position. Saying that this will cause arbcom to "resume burdens that I [you, Durova] and others have striven for half a year to relieve from their shoulders" is preposterous. You might already know that I was an active arbitrator until not very long ago. I don't know how long you have been editing, but it's is not true at all to suggest that community bans are a new phenomenon related to this change in policy language a few months ago, and it is certainly not true to suggest that the change has made them easier. I, and most arbitrators usually have been, was a strong proponent of gettin the community at large to be more proactive in banning disruptive users, instead of taking obvious cases to arbcom to do the same thing a month later. Your change has nothing to do with making that any easier or more community-based.

Your responses are a complete misrepresentation of the arguments being presented. You said "the Nathanrdotcom case was a direct result of the pitfalls of the old system: a single administrator unblocked an account that almost certainly would not have been unbanned at a consensus discussion". No one has suggested that we don't need "a consensus discussion". You bring up an example of a bad move by an administrator, acting against the community's wishes, and think that in some way argues for your proposition. A community ban is nothing new, even if admins have messed up in the past. Let me quote that longstanding sentence again: "The Wikipedia community, taking decisions according to appropriate community-designed policies with consensus support, or (more rarely) following consensus on the case itself." In what way is that not sufficient? What "safeguards" will be removed? No change in policy wording makes it any less possible for an admin to make a bad decision, and no change you've suggested makes it any less true that the previous wording already supports consensus as necessary for a community banning.

You claim "the old system elevated sysops to a privileged position and deprived other Wikipedians of any meaningful voice in the process". Again, reread the sentence I cited; if any admin is acting against the wishes of the community in this, it is because they are misbehaving, not because of the policy, which requires consensus. That sentence is in no way out of alignement with current practice, as you suggest. You brought up that it precludes topical bans, but that reasoning doesn't even make sense to me. It in no way specifies that it is referring to only full site bans, and it makes no sense to assume so. You bullet point outline misses the point: much of the language that I haven't specifcally disagreed with isn't wrong, it's excessive and repetitve. You said "This helps ensure that community bans are well-founded and equitable" for a sentence that exactly repeats the meaning of the first sentence on the page about community bans. These changes are moving towards creating a legal system of bans and reviews on Wikipedia which will constrain administrators, when instead what we need, and used to have, was is a simple system where administrators block people who have demonstrated (extensive block histories, edit warring, personal attacks, etc.) that a block would be beneficial, discussing cases that might be controversial, and where administrators unblock where it would be beneficial, discussing cases that might be controversial. In all circumstances, an administrator not discussing properly, or not acting on community consensus should not be an administrator; that is no fault with how the policy is written. Dmcdevit·t 22:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. You've been arguing that policy on community bans should end at "If not one out of 1,182 administrators is willing to unblock a user, the user can be considered banned." Under that rule, how could any administrator's unblock be "a bad move..., acting against the community's wishes" ? By your definition, one single admin's unblock is what shows that the user isn't banned, and there is no way to show that the unblock was "against the community's wishes" because your version of policy never asks the community what its wishes are. The community sanction noticeboard actually does so -- exists to do so -- and you'd eliminate the CSN. I don't see how you can have it both ways, *both* remove a forum for asking the community its wishes *and* accuse anyone of acting against those wishes. -- Ben TALK/HIST 23:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
This is my point: it makes sense because we choose administrators based on our trust in their good judgment, so an administrator should not be willing to unblock a user against the community's wishes. I have been saying over and over again that discussion is often necessary. It's not as if we didn't have discussion before the "Community sanction noticeboard." In fact, most discussions outside of it are decidedly more consensus-oriented, and less vote-based. Dmcdevit·t 23:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
So how do you determine what the community's wishes are? Telepathically? If "the Wikipedia community [takes] decisions... following consensus on the case itself", how does it reach that consensus? Unless the administrators are gifted with psychic powers, there should be a forum for discussing the case and reaching consensus. That's exactly what WP:CSN is for. If you want to eliminate that forum, then why complain that any unblock was "against the community's wishes" ? -- Ben TALK/HIST 23:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
It's a trade-off. We trust people (administrators) to listen to what other people are saying and act on their view of consensus. When this is challenged (which happens once in a blue moon) they know they've messed up and they or someone else reverses the action.
Community bans have never been made in a vacuum, to my knowledge. While Community sanction noticeboard may have its uses, we managed extremely well without it, and requiring that all bans be listed there would be bad for Wikipedia because it would replace community consensus with process and voting. Been there, done that, no thank you. --Tony Sidaway 00:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Tony, if you must, if you really really must edit other people's comments and/or signatures on talk pages, would you please at least not break them up into partial lines when you do so?

You've offered no reason why discussions would be "bad" if held on a stable page set aside for just that purpose, as opposed to some unspecified non-"process". -- Ben TALK/HIST 01:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Apologies if my attempts to keep this page editable are resulting in avoidable problems. I absolutely do not argue that discussions held "on a stable page set aside for just that purpose" are "bad" or anything of the sort. I argue, consistently, that the proposed change to policy is unnecessary instruction creep, far too prescriptive, and very destructive to the efficient formation of consensus and execution of consensus-based bans. --Tony Sidaway 01:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
You've offered no reason why it would be "destructive to the efficient formation of consensus and execution of consensus-based bans" to hold discussions on a stable page set aside for just that purpose, as opposed to some unspecified non-"process".

You are referring to a policy provision that's been in place for five months, and an actual forum that's been in place and functioning for a while, as a "proposed change to policy". That's a bit anachronistic. The "proposed change to policy" is to roll everything back five months... and that seems unnecessary to me. Again, you've offered no reason to condemn present policy as "destructive". If it really is, then what has it "destroyed", in the five months it's been in place? If it hasn't "destroyed" anything, how can it be "destructive"? This isn't some hypothetical future scenario; the policy is there, the community sanction noticeboard is there. What have they "destroyed"? -- Ben TALK/HIST 02:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Chapter 12

You know the "topical bans" thing mystifies mem, and I've probably been involved in topical bans as much as any human being (I advised Nicholas Turnbull on the Pete Townshend ban and I've experimented with them myself in the past). How on earth did we manage without consulting the banning policy to tell us what eyes to dot and what tees to cross or the arbitration committee to tell us we could do it in the first place? No we decided what to do, said what we would do, and did it when everybody new what we were doing and nobody objected. Consensus, cannae whack it. --Tony Sidaway 23:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
But ye hae whackkit it, as a "lynch mob", nae less. -- Ben 00:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely not. Indeed the fact that consensus isn't about some bloody silly caucus of voters seems to be zooming right over some heads here. --Tony Sidaway 00:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
At least the top line of the "i" box atop that page -- "Proposed community bans are discussed; they are not ratified by some majority vote." -- has zoomed right over some head here. -- Ben 01:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Could you express this in English? --Tony Sidaway 01:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
(1) The first non-navbox line, the first sentence, on WP:CN is "Proposed community bans are discussed; they are not ratified by some majority vote." (2) You've denounced that page as a "lynch mob" earlier, and here as "some bloody silly caucus of voters". (3) Do you not see the fundamental disconnection between (1) and (2)? -- Ben TALK/HIST 01:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Chapter 12a

(too many edit conflicts to place this appropriately - please bear with me)

So how shall one administrator determine what the community's wishes are, if not by asking the community? This returns to part of the basis for proposing the community sanctions noticeboard: that few non-sysops watch the heavily traffic at WP:AN and WP:ANI with sufficient diligence to participate in many of these community discussions. Those noticeboard names themselves discourage general participation. Weeks or months later when a need arose to cite one of those discussions as precedent or in arbitration evidence, the process of laboring through all those lengthy and mostly unrelated archive threads rendered it difficult at best to demonstrate what precedent actually was.
I think we all agree that community bans are a necessary part of Wikipedia and that they ought to be implemented in a way that provides the best balance of flexibility and fairness. The bottom line that inspired my commitment to the community banning process is that it addresses a needed aspect of this growing website. Community bans certainly happened more than six months ago - I've never asserted otherwise. What I do assert is that this has been developments over the past half year have addressed some of the pitfalls of the older system. When the community discusses whether to unban an editor, legitimate objections will probably come to light that a single well-meaning administrator might not be aware of if acting alone. When the community topic bans an editor (which I scrupulously noted as the only context of arbitration endorsement, as part of a rebuttal to a blanket dismissal) and the precedent is archived for ready access, it resolves a problem that as early as the start of this year generally fell into the Committee's lap. Yes, individual sysops had been known to declare particular editors as topic banned earlier than that, but the process of demonstrating that right through diffs or archival thread links made substantiation well-nigh impossible for anyone who hadn't been directly involved in those particular discussions. Critics call this site's functioning opaque and byzantine. We're not supposed to be running a process where only a few people in the know understand where and how to prove what the community's powers actually are. DurovaCharge! 00:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
"So how shall one administrator determine what the community's wishes are, if not by asking the community?" As I said above, please watch your loaded questions. No one is suggesting that discussion is a bad thing. In fact, I'll quote myself (quoting you) in response to the exact same assertion earlier: "No one has suggested that we don't need "a consensus discussion"." This has nothing to do with excluding the community, only excluding legalism. Again (this is getting tiresome), please read the actual text, which does address the role of consensus and community, and tell me what is insufficient about it:
The Wikipedia community, taking decisions according to appropriate community-designed policies with consensus support, or (more rarely) following consensus on the case itself. If one out of 1,182 is unwilling to unblock a user, the user can be considered banned.
Dmcdevit·t 00:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
That says what; the rest specifies other Ws, like where. Should we all have to guess where to go, pick a page at random, create little subpages of our own that no-one else even knows about, or hold the "consensus" discussion in email or IRC? Better to set aside one stable on-Wiki page that's linked from WP:BAN, WP:BANNED, WP:AN, WP:ANI, and so forth, so everyone can find it and watchlist it and monitor or participate in discussions as they choose. What is your counter-proposal? Where will community consensus be reached once you eliminate the page dedicated to that purpose? -- Ben 01:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Consensus is formed through discussion. It isn't formed in some bloody silly voting session. There is no need for a counter-proposal. --Tony Sidaway 01:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
"Consensus is formed through discussion." -- You're agreeing with the first sentence on WP:CN: "Proposed community bans are discussed; they are not ratified by some majority vote." -- Ben TALK/HIST 02:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
So what? I propose that those two short sentences in the blockquote above are sufficient and preferable to the extended version. If your only objection is that it doesn't specify where, then that seems like unnecessary instruction creep. Basically, youre just pushing your "Community sanction noticeboard". Discussion was invented before CSN, and we had community bans back then, too. Your demand of a "counter-proposal" seems to miss that point. This is a wiki; we can discuss wherever we want, not just in some self-ppointed courtroom. Discussion can take place in many venues; I fail to see in what way that shorter text is not the ideal text. Dmcdevit·t 02:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
"This is a wiki; we can discuss wherever we want" -- As long as it isn't WP:CN, eh?

"not just in some self-appointed courtroom." -- Wouldn't any other place we hold such a discussion be at least as much "self-appointed", in fact more so because not specified by policy?

"Discussion can take place in many venues" -- Then why not on WP:CN? Of course, no matter where a discussion is held, someone could still call it a "lynch mob" or a "caucus of voters"... and somewhere, on some short-lived and later deleted subpage or an off-wiki mail-list or IRC channel, that might actually be true... but they'd leave no history or archive to check, would they? So how would that remedy the problem?

WP:CN is a stable on-Wiki page with a history and archive, linked from the other noticeboards and WP:BAN and WP:BANNED, so people can find it and watch it and later go back to check it -- so everyone can know whether the discussion leading up to a decision was fair, honest, rational, reasonable, and really reached the consensus that was later asserted in a ban entry. It's an open public record with an audit trail, not a secret Star Chamber. If ever a "lynch mob" did form there, eagle-eyed citizens like David Gerard or Tony Sidaway or your good self could blow the whistle on it. We can, as Mark Twain advised, put all our eggs in one basket and then watch that basket.

But without such a stable forum, with banning discussions scattered hither and yon, how could you good citizens ever keep track of all of them, to be sure no "lynch mob" was occurring? Claims of consensus to ban might be made all over the place, but did they really occur, or they were entirely made up, or did they consist of three like-minded people sharing a personal grudge or POV? How could you, or the rest of us, ever be sure? How many different places would we have to look? Or would some records remain forever uncheckable?

Before this, already there were accusations that off-Wiki discussions, e.g. on IRC, made unfair (and unlogged) decisions affecting other users' on-Wiki status. At least WP:CN is on-Wiki, open to participation by all unblocked editors, and open to review by all, full stop. If it has flaws, so may all the alternatives. But WP:CN's flaws can be seen, discussed, and fixed, and any palpably unfair decisions can be revisited and overturned -- which may not be true of the alternatives.

So how does your counter-proposal make things better instead of worse? -- Ben TALK/HIST 06:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, we had a wiki before CN, too. "As long as it isn't WP:CN" are not my words. The options are not, as you seem to think, CN or some smoke-filled room. It is not the only place that is open. But any reasonable venue means that: I never said we should prohibit CN in policy. This feels like a red herring. This is the text I'm talking about:
The Wikipedia community, taking decisions according to appropriate community-designed policies with consensus support, or (more rarely) following consensus on the case itself. If one out of 1,182 is unwilling to unblock a user, the user can be considered banned.
Please address this, is it only the ommission of Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard that you don't like? At the risk of questioning your unquestionable assumptions, what's the point of all this concern for scattered discussion, unarchived discussions, and so on? Why should we want another insular community of people, watching the community ban discussions? This will tend to make such decisions less representative of the community (I'm not sure why you seem to think the CSN has any more claim to the "community" than other current noticeboards). If someone objects to the ban, they will bring it up to the blocking admin who will point them to the discussion, if they couldn't find it. This is unnecessary minutiae to me. If it said something like "Make sure all community ban discussions are properly archived and linked at the banned user's userpage" would it satisfy your concerns? Dmcdevit·t 07:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
"what's the point of all this concern for scattered discussion, unarchived discussions, and so on?" -- David and Tony and Mackensen have expressed concern about a discussion turning into a "voting session", "caucus", or "lynch mob". If the discussions take place in one stable forum, set in advance, linked from all the noticeboards, and with archives kept, then they and you and everyone else can watchlist that forum, or every so often review the page and archives, and keep sharp watch for any such improprieties. If the discussions happen at unannounced pages, how will they or anyone else know to look there, or catch a "lynch mob" while it's still forming (before it can inflict any shameful ignominy upon its imminent innocent victim)? Perhaps only an insular group would know about such an ad hoc discussion area. In the case of off-Wiki lists or chatboards or IRC channels, perhaps only an insular group could participate in or even read the debate, no matter who had heard that it was taking place. Without an open process, why should anyone have confidence that the result was fair? But with an open process, in a single stable forum, under the watchful eyes of everyone who cares, any unfairness is likely to be seen and objected to at once, deterring any attempted "lynching" or at least preventing its success.

"This will tend to make such decisions less representative of the community" -- WP:CN is accessible to the entire community; even the name "community sanction noticeboard" makes clear that it is for the entire community, not just admins or arbiters; it is listed in the noticeboard navbox and the WP:BAN and WP:BANNED pages, so it's easy to find; it's as public and open as any page on Wikipedia. Would that be true of a mail-list? of an IRC channel? of an ad-hoc sub-page that might later be deleted before any of these watchful citizens are even aware it exists, let alone get to voice their objection to any unfairness?

"If someone objects to the ban, they will bring it up to the blocking admin who will point them to the discussion, if they couldn't find it." -- Yeah, after the discussion is over, if someone hears about the ban, they can be pointed to the ban discussion, if it still exists (undeleted) on-Wiki; but they'd too late to participate, even if they could have accessed the mail-list, chatboard, or IRC channel; several big IFs there. But everyone who wants to monitor banning discussions can watchlist WP:CN and/or visit it daily, twice-daily, hourly if they wish, to make sure everything's on the up-and-up. How do they watchlist or monitor all the possible alternatives? -- Ben TALK/HIST 18:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Chapter 13

For what it's worth-I thought bringing "old" community bans for "review" was a bit over-the-top myself. If someone actually does unblock, then it's an issue we need to discuss. Until that point, it's a done deal-no one's unblocking, no one's arguing for an unblock, so it's a ban. But in some cases, it is necessary to have some discussion. If you're not sure what the community's feelings are on something, you ask! I think that's far preferable to just placing an indefinite block to see if it goes over or not. It's also served a very valuable purpose (and one that the old community-ban structure did nothing to address) of allowing the community to decide that sanctions or restrictions short of a full ban are called for. The ArbCom, in every case which has been challenged that I know of, has upheld the sanctions in question and the community's right to place them. So I pose a question. Can anyone who opposes the idea of the CN provide a case in which, in their opinion, the process there worked badly, or produced incorrect results? Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Please don't conflate the "Community sanction noticeboard" with discussion. We had discussion before that noticeboard, and it exists elsewhere on Wikipedia, too. The slimmed down text (which is nothing new) in no way inhibits discussion. I think this is a red herring. While I don't like the CSN, this discussion is about restoring the traditional wording to the policy, and it's already bloated enough as it is. Dmcdevit·t 00:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Alright? Do you have an answer to the question? CN isn't a proposal, in which I could see opposing it "on principle". But right now, it's actually going, and has been for some time now. Can you show me one case in which you believe it produced an erroneous result, banning or imposing sanctions on someone undeservedly? Does it actually not work? We don't need to have theoretical discussions over what could go wrong, when there's been plenty of time to see if it really has. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I was about to say what Dmcdevit has said. We're discussing the proposal to change policy to outlaw certain kinds of discussion. Why should these kinds of discussion be outlawed? And please stop trying to change the subject. --Tony Sidaway
Well, nothing's being "outlawed", I don't believe. (If there's anything trying to be "outlawed", it would be the discussion that takes place on the CN, or at least having discussions in that particular venue.) What I am wondering, though, having looked through the discussion, is why there's so much discussion of the principle of the CN, when we have real, hard evidence to work with? If it's leading to people getting banned that shouldn't be, by all means, let's get rid of it posthaste. On the other hand, if it's working well, why not just say "Well, if it works, it works"? I guess I'm seeing a lot of discussion of theoretical problems, but have there been any actual ones? I don't think, when we're discussing shutting down an already-running process, that "What problems has it actually caused?" is a bad thing to consider, nor is it offtopic or a change of subject. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
(To clarify the above) It seems that, for better or worse, the discussion here has veered from a change in wording here to a discussion of the merits of using CN. Since the CN does deal with bans, and this policy deals with how such are imposed or dealt with, it certainly seems relevant to me. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

To follow up on Seraphimblade's comments, the specific discussion that precipitated this policy debate was a very unusual case, based upon some not-very-subtle hints from a particular editor that a manner in which he construed ambiguity between indefinite blocking and community banning might form the basis for a libel case against particular Wikipedians. And although I'm no lawyer and my understanding by no means holds the weight of a legal opinion, to my layman's empirical observation of how the law operates, a few non-Wikipedians in robes might have become sufficiently confused to send a case to trial (not a likely scenario in my estimate but a possible one). So I had two ideas: first, clarify that particular instance beyond reasonable doubt in a community discussion so that individual would be definitively sitebanned according to every conceivable definition and no Wikipedian need fear repercussions by describing him as such; second, to preemptively resolve every corresponding status through a unified discussion that would blanket-convert old style community bans into current style community bans. On a functional level that would have meant nothing more than holding a community discussion before unblocking someone who's been indef blocked for over half a year - probably a good sense initiative in itself (if anyone who had been gone that long appealed to me via e-mail I'd certainly sound out the community before I unblocked). At the time I proposed that blanket solution I had the Nathanrdotcom situation in mind, but other recent unblocks by Jimbo make it more clear than ever that none of us bats .1000 when we act unilaterally. It does help to have a central location for discussion and archival of community sanctions decisions. To those who disagree: please cite the specific discussion that established consensus agreement for the definition of a community ban as an indefinite block that no sysop is willing to unblock. I've followed the community banning process in real time since the Jason Gastrich case and I've read up on banning as far back as the era when only Jimbo could do it, yet I haven't seen any diff or discussion thread where that particular standard took shape. Surely, if that really received consensus approval and no central locale is needed to document such things, then it cannot take more than five minutes to locate where this happened. DurovaCharge! 07:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

This isn't about unilateralism. Nowhere has anyone suggested unilateralism or lack of consensus discussion. Please stop throwing out that red herring. This is about getting rid of your legalistic hoops that constrain the community from simply doing what is reasonable. There is no such thing as "old style community bans" and "current style community bans". A community ban is a community ban. It's when the community agrees to ban someone, nothing more or less. Dmcdevit·t 07:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Please do not conflate one peculiar discussion with erroneous suppositions about my preferences regarding banning policy. Those legalistic hoops were not mine but Daniel Brandt's, and as near as I can parse that expression, your grievance there appears to be with him.
As I have already stated at this discussion, some of the consensus decisions about community banning were formed against my better judgement, yet I have stood by the process and done my best to ensure that it's consistent, fair, and scalable. The old version lacked fundamental elements of scalability and that lack was what used to constrain the community from doing what was reasonable. The rate of community banning has increased substantially since CSN got established. Seraphimblade has repeatedly asked for a single example of how CSN supposedly stood in the way of any rational action. None has been supplied. Likewise, I repeat my request for a specific citation of the discussion where a community ban is an indefinite block that no administrator is willing to unblock received consensus approval. The palpable bad faith and incivility of this thread is enough to try the patience of a saint. Please, exercise the basic courtesy that grants an opposing view a rebuttal on its merits. Otherwise half of this discussion gains the appearance of one lengthyWP:IDONTLIKEIT. DurovaCharge! 09:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Durova, I'm not avoiding the argument here, I'll respond tomorrow. But let me just say, I don't think I have ever had occasion to be accused of bad faith by another administrator in all my years here. I kept quiet when you likened me (and Tony, I suppose) to "bulls in a china shop" leaving "others to clean the mess they created" but this is quite offensive. I suggest you step back for a bit; I'm going to bed, at least. Dmcdevit·t 10:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Absence of discussion is not proof of consent. If I had realized the change I would have turned up here in high dudgeon to dispute it. You'll forgive me if I trouble dredging up a diff for a policy that stood for several years with broad community support. It never occurred to me that anyone would, or could, challenge the notion that a community ban describes a situation in which no administrator will unblock. If you think about it, even these bans which you order up at WP:CN operate on the same principle: you can have 100 editors say "ban this troll," but if the administrators think it would be a bad block your community ban is worthless. I personally have banned more people just from WP:RFCU then have ever passed through the community noticeboard–are these bans less valid because I haven't signed the proper forms, or gone through the proper processes? Should all the checkuser-blocked/banned people be submitted for review? The problem here is not whether the people who go through WP:CN should actually have been banned (or not). The problem is that the principles underlying the change made five months ago--a change which obviously does not have consensus--are fundamentally at odds with best practices and the way we do things here. That you cannot grasp the basis of the opposition's argument does not warrant an accusation of bad faith–rather, it behooves you to go back and re-read what they're saying. Mackensen (talk) 10:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Chapter 14

Seraphimblade writes: Well, nothing's being "outlawed", I don't believe.
Well that's just it: this is an attempt to change policy so that community bans are only valid if they follow a particular rigid and extremely unwikipedian recipe. Anything else would be outlawed. No matter how valid the community consensus, unless the correct hoops had been jumped through there would be no ban. This is not how we do things on Wikipedia. This won't wash. --Tony Sidaway 07:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Begging your pardon: that attempt succeeded five months ago without complaint. DurovaCharge! 09:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually, my solution wouldn't be to "outlaw" anything. If an indef block is placed, and no one's willing to unblock, that's still a ban, just like always. If anyone raises questions, or an indef block has not yet been placed but there is good reason to believe a ban may be called for, it goes to CN for discussion. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

May I offer a modest proposal? We might make better progress by taking a breather by mutual consensus, then putting the specific question What constitutes a community ban? before the community. The trend at this particular discussion has been running counter to the trend of recent community ban discussions.

This is a procedural suggestion that may bring us closer to consensus on other issues here and - I hope - turn down the temperature on our discussion. My personal views on that matter have no bearing on this suggestion (come to think of it, I haven't even expressed my views and the conjectures have been pretty far off the mark).

So how about it: mutual cooldown, then invite the community to discuss what community banning is? DurovaCharge! 10:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

A modest proposal indeed. The original change was also made without real community input as well. A honest solution would revert to the original version, which stood for a very long time and has the wide support of administrators and those interested in administration, and then seen whether the community wants to entrust the banning process to yet another noticeboard. The trend that I've observed, at WP:RFCN and elsewhere, has suggested that such mechanisms are losing ground. Mackensen (talk) 11:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Agreed on RFCN. But there's been a lot of participation at CN, and thus far, no one has been able to offer up a single example of where it's actually gone wrong. I think the objections here are more to the assertions that discussion on CN is the only valid way to community ban, not that such discussion is one valid way. The ArbCom has also upheld community sanctions (both full bans and lesser sanctions) set that way. Seraphimblade Talk to me 11:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I suspect that if you brought additional active arbitrators here they'd agree that a community ban is a block that no administrator will overturn. I think that this process threatens to go wrong, and that in the Daniel Brandt situation played with fire. As I've noted above, this process--and it is a process--still relies on there being no administrator willing to overturn the block. Mackensen (talk) 11:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not even really disagreeing to that, I think that's an excellent working definition, and obviously, if there is an admin who's convinced enough the block is unjustified to overturn it, there's no clear consensus for a ban and it needs to go to ArbCom. However, most of the bans that took place via CN were cases in which the editors banned effectively had shown themselves to be incorrigible, and a strong showing of community consensus led to exactly that result-they got blocked indef, and no one was willing to unblock them. In other cases, it's shown that there wasn't a clear consensus, possibly averting unfortunate situations where someone's blocked and it has to be overturned. However, I think its most unique function (and this was specifically endorsed by ArbCom in at least one instance), is to allow the community to set lesser sanctions than an outright ban. Seraphimblade Talk to me 11:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes it has been useful for setting subject-related bans in my experience. --Tony Sidaway 13:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

In the interests of good faith and collaboration I've limited my participation at this dispute to a single policy page edit. It had been my impression that the matter had been settled by consensus some time ago, but apparently it hasn't, and the more I think about it the more I realize that I've repeated what I had believed was consensus rather than voice my own perspective. And if I was acting on a good faith misapprehension then I can understand how this whole discussion turned hot. I apologize for my share of that - it was unintentional.

Let's get this back onto a harmonious track. Content RFC comes to mind, unless someone has a better option. Can we agree for the time being to restrict the question to the definition of a community ban? That seems like the cornerstone of this discussion and the other issues might resolve themselves if that gets cleared up. DurovaCharge! 21:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it's worth discussing first what we're going to ask the community. It appears to me that the problem here was inadequate consultation prior to inserting into written policy a requirement to use a specific forum, to wit Community sanction noticeboard, prior to banning an editor. Ideally I'd like us to see if there exists consensus for that requirement. --Tony Sidaway 15:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
This debate has several aspects. The most basic element appears to be the definition of a community ban. Maybe we can resolve the rest if that's settled. If not, another request for comment can follow. My experience has been that the best way to settle a multifaceted dispute is to work on it one part at a time in a commonsense order. Does that sound like an acceptable approach to you? DurovaCharge! 22:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Query

If I understand correctly, the disagreement is over whether community bans should be discussed on WP:CN. Might this not be solved by stating that they are usually discussed there, without implying that it's mandatory to discuss them there? Radiant! 10:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd even go for "may be" discussed there. I don't have any problem with the setup that if an admin sets an indef block, and no one else is willing to remove or reduce it, the editor is banned. But it doesn't hurt to have a place to discuss it if objections are raised, or if no one has yet set an indef block but such may be called for. Seraphimblade Talk to me 11:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, this [16] is what keeps getting re-instated. It's almost tendentious in its language. Discussing if there are objections is one thing, and a very good thing, but WP:CN now serves as a place to initiate discussions of outright banning--a sort of draconion Quickpolls. Mackensen (talk) 11:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Where that's been tried on users without a demonstrably banworthy track record (e.g. WP:CN#Diyarbakir), note the distinct absence of a lynch mob gathering with their torches lit. Like Owen Glendower's "spirits from the vasty deep", they may be called up by anyone -- but will they come when you do call for them? Apparently not. Review the discussions that actually resulted in a consensus to ban; with which of them do you disagree? -- Ben TALK/HIST 19:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Mackensen. May be is better. Community sanction noticeboard may or may not be a suitable forum for discussion. In the case of obvious bans, I'd say, such as for running a big vandalizing sock farm, it's superfluous becase the ban follows directly from policy and discussing whether or not to make such a ban would give the false impression that such egregiously bad behavior is of lesser gravity than it actually is. Wikipedia consensus on basic policy issues is persistent and doesn't have to be reconfirmed every time we block or ban an egregiously bad editor. --Tony Sidaway 13:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
"Wikipedia consensus on basic policy issues is persistent and doesn't have to be reconfirmed" -- like the five-months-stable policy you want to overturn by calling it a "proposal", "an attempt to change policy", "the proposed change to policy", when actually you're proposing a change, and saying of current policy that it "has no authority as policy".

"every time we block or ban an egregiously bad editor." -- In that situation, it's not policy that's up for discussion, but the facts about that particular editor, including any exculpatory or mitigating details that might not have been considered by the blocking admin. -- Ben TALK/HIST 20:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, Jossi inserted the text without discussing it with anyone or even dropping a note on the talk page [17]. He appears to have copied the text from a old revision of Wikipedia:Blocking policy, and the revision at the time was the subject of a dispute on that policy page's talk page over whether HOTR (talk · contribs) could be considered "community banned" or not. Under the circumstances I'm not prepared to endorse this change. A major change such as this ought to have been raised at the village pump or elsewhere. Now, the question is whether Jossi realized he was making a major change. I understand that text to mean that an administrator blocks with the surety that no one would unblock. This is how I understand a community ban, and this is far, far different from the process on WP:CN. Mackensen (talk) 16:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
So it was already part of Wikipedia policy; it just got relocated from there to here, the more appropriate place? Then it didn't need a new approval: as Tony points out, "Wikipedia consensus on basic policy issues is persistent and doesn't have to be reconfirmed". -- Ben TALK/HIST 23:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Please see the discussion below, in which I raise several pertinent issues. This policy doesn't say what you think it says. Mackensen (talk) 01:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
May be is better. In uncontroversial issues and admin can simply take action, Tony put it well. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 13:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Current policy, as it stands in the protected version, already lets admins block without having to wait for discussion. A block review typically follows a block, asking for consensus that the blocked user should never be unblocked, and that any of his sockpuppets (or edits) can be blocked (reverted) on sight without further discussion or 3RR violation. That way, "the community's wishes" can be established for the record, leaving no need for speculation or argument about what "the community's wishes" are. But if the blocking admin doesn't want such a review, he can just indefblock and go on to other matters... and if another admin later unblocks that user, let's hear no complaints about it being "against the community's wishes" when the community never discussed the case. -- Ben TALK/HIST 19:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring

I urge sysops to stop edit warring on this page. This is most unseemly. Could you please first discuss proposed changes here? --Ghirlandajo 13:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Although changes were made, reverted, I don't see anything beyond a collective 2RR. I would that in good faith, Dmcdevit, Mac, Ben, and myself, (and others) are discussing these changes now. And that no egregious violation, or edit war occurred. I hope that we do not have to address the actual reversions, the fact is, that all participants are discussing now. I do not want to lose focus from the discussion of the changes. Best regards, Navou 13:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a "collective 2RR". However I'm glad that the page has been protected. --Tony Sidaway 14:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I just coined it. It applies (+content -content +content -content by different editors) :P Navou 17:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
It's a little misleading because it tends to equate independent actions by several different editors. --Tony Sidaway 17:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

(outdent and OT) Why are you refactoring my signature? Navou 17:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

To remove 100 or so characters of unnecessary clutter. In my browser edit box that's about 10% of the editing space per occurrence. --Tony Sidaway 21:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Harmonious solution?

Let's move forward. Posting now to make sure I don't tread on any toes: does anyone object to opening an RFC that would sound out the community on the definition of a community ban? DurovaCharge! 15:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, reading all of this, I'm not sure there's much disagreement on the matter. I take the view that "community ban" describes a block that no administrator is willing to overturn. This is the language I would see in the policy page:

“ The Wikipedia community, taking decisions according to appropriate community-designed policies with consensus support, or (more rarely) following consensus on the case itself. If not one out of 1,556 administrators is willing to unblock a user, the user can be considered banned. ”
“ There have been situations where a user has exhausted the community's patience to the point where he or she finds themselves indefinitely blocked by an administrator . . . and no one is willing to unblock them. Administrators who block in these cases should be sure that there is a consensus of community support for the block, and should submit the block for review at a relevant noticeboard. That it is a community ban should be noted in the block log, and the user should be listed on Wikipedia:List of banned users (under "Community"). Community bans must be supported by a strong consensus. The community may impose either topic bans or general editing bans. ”

Now, here's the alternative version:

“ The Wikipedia community, taking decisions according to appropriate community-designed policies with consensus support, or (more rarely) following consensus on the case itself. ”
“ There have been situations where a user has exhausted the community's patience to the point where he or she finds themselves indefinitely blocked by an administrator . . . and no one is willing to unblock them. 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 Wikipedia:List of banned users (under "Community"). Community bans must be supported by a strong consensus and should never be enacted based on agreement between a handful of admins or users. The community may impose either topic bans or general editing bans. ”

Now, let's talk about the difference between these two. First of all, if no administrator is willing to unblock then a user is banned. All mechanisms of this sort rely on administrative compliance. Even the Arbitration Committee cannot overcome administrative nullification. Now, the newer version makes an explicit connection between mentioning a block and submitting it for review, and prescribes the location to do so. Bans were previously logged at the Administrators' noticeboard because only administrators could undo them. This remains the case. Transferring jurisdiction to the "Community noticeboard" questions the underlying nature of a community ban. Indeed, we've seen a transformation in which community bans are "proposed" and then voted on, similar to the old quickpolls. This concept is obviously not intended by either wording, which goes no further than suggesting that a noticeboard be used so that others may review the block. If no administrator will undo the block, then the user is banned. Now, the question here, really, is whether this community noticeboard could ever "overturn" a community ban. The answer is that it could only if one or more administrators agreed that the block should be lifted and were willing to do so. If one hundred non-sysops wanted to unblock Joe User but no administrator was willing to do so (an extreme example, but bear with me) then that user would not be unblocked. Regardless of the wording, we need to be clear that the community noticeboard has no actual power to overturn or effect a ban. Ultimately, any situation in which there is no consensus clearly cries out for an RfC or perhaps Arbitration. For these reasons, I support the old version. Mackensen (talk) 16:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Please provide a link or diff to the consensus discussion that established the definition of a community ban as one that no administrator was willing to undo. DurovaCharge! 23:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Sure. At the same time, I'll ask you to find the consensus discussion that established the present segment which got borrowed from the blocking policy. As I indicated elsewhere, that segment was contentious. Now that we've got that out of the way, how about you respond to my main point. In particular, given the prolonged absence of any formal dispute resolution mechanism outside of the arbitration committee, how do you think someone got community banned? Even the "policy" as presently written allows only for block review, not initiation. Do you have any comment on any of this at all, aside from a request for diffs (someone of which I provided above)? Mackensen (talk) 01:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I have diffs for you. Forgive me, but I'm going to include context as well. David Gerard (talk · contribs) added a point of clarification to the banning policy on July 29, 2005 [18]. He added the following line: "Some editors are so odious that not one of the 500+ admins will unblock them." This is in the spirit of what I've adumbrated above. This was the subject of discussion later in September and December of that year, in which editors basically upheld that definition [19]. UninvitedCompany (talk · contribs) removed that particular line as part of a general cleanup of the policy, which had gotten overlong, in August of 2006: [20]. It seems clear that his objections were linguistic and that he did not think he was effecting a change in policy. I find these to be conclusive proofs. Mackensen (talk) 01:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Mackensen, I note in your first diff (in the spirit of what you adumbrated above), both the old and new ("clarified") versions had "The Wikipedia community, taking decisions according to appropriate community-designed policies with consensus support, or (more rarely) following consensus on the case itself. The quickpolls policy was one example of this." So the much-despised process was in policy back then. Thank you for that citation.

In your second diff, "in which" (as you say) "editors basically upheld that definition", the comments included "if (and when) the admins are not a large enough bloc to sway the consensus legitimately, they shouldn't be able to override it" (Nickptar), "I agree with that, but I think if that happens, we need to focus on RfA and promote a lot of new admins until it is no longer a problem." (JesseW), "The chance of 550 admins all being unwilling to unblock a real jerk and the community as a whole wanting him unblocked is infinitessimal." (Theresa Knott) -- In short, what the editors upheld was that the overall community's consensus decision governs, over and above the no-admin-will-unblock standard; it's simply that the two groups having such totally opposed positions seemed too unlikely to require consideration. Thank you again for that citation.

In your third diff, David's addition (now phrased "Some editors are so odious that not one of the administrators on Wikipedia would ever want to unblock them") was taken back out again. Since that's a statement, not a policy or guideline or any kind of rule, removing it made no policy difference at all. The governing decision was the community consensus, before and after these changes. Thank you for all these citations, Mackensen. I agree that these are conclusive proofs, since you offered them as your case and they demonstrate the opposite. -- Ben TALK/HIST 02:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
No, no they don't. Please actually read all that I've written, and tell me how we've gone from community to consensus to voting on bans. Can you do that, please? I don't think that you can. I also don't think you can assert that what the CN does now is in any way supported by policy, since Quickpolls is the same concept and required discussion and a vote before being enacted. As such, it was expressly acknowledged to be a new departure from the way things work. If no administrator will unblock, that is consensus. If you're asserting that a vote on the CN means consensus, I think you're going to find substantial opposition to that view, and that view is in no way grounded in policy. I have asked you, repeatedly, to explain how the new functioning of the CN is grounded in policy, and you've never answered that question in any conclusive fashion. You've repeatedly made assertions about consensus, which puzzles me since I've never doubted or questioned the need for consensus, and have indeed asserted that the agreement of over one thousand administrators is consensus of the most definitive kind. Now, I will ask the question again: how do you assert that voting-style bans on the Community Noticeboard is supported by this policy, and how can such a ban exist without falling under the traditional definition of a community ban: a block that no administrator will undo? Mackensen (talk) 12:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
"tell me how we've gone from community to consensus to voting on bans. Can you do that, please? I don't think that you can." Since I wasn't arguing for "voting on bans", and have repeatedly quoted the first sentence of WP:CN -- ""Proposed community bans are discussed; they are not ratified by some majority vote." -- why try now to foist a "voting on bans" strawman off on this discussion as being my position?

What I'm objecting to is your mixing up an unreversed admin action with the active consensus of the entire community. These are not the same thing. Start with "admins" ≠ "community": there are 7,284,283 users on Wikipedia, and only 1,556 administrators; that's about 4,681 users per admin, or 0.21 admins per 1,000 users. Wikipedia isn't a democracy, but neither is it a representative government, and admins are not Congress. The tiny minority that are admins don't constitute the "community" for the purpose of consensus; if they did, then only admins could support or oppose RfAs (another case of consensus decision).

Continue on to "passive" ≠ "active": a block may remain unreversed by other admins simply because those admins who might have reversed it never knew it occurred, never looked into the background. On the community sanction noticeboard, reasons to ban are brought up for open discussion by admins and non-admins alike, and anyone might oppose instead of support; whatever consensus results has been actively considered. Should "passive consensus" (of admins alone) trump "active consensus" (of users including but not restricted to admins), or the other way around? -- Ben TALK/HIST 21:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
You seem to be caught up on the sentence "If not one out of 1,556 administrators is willing to unblock a user, the user can be considered banned." This is not a major problem, in my opinion. I get the feeling that there are objections to it on the basis of its implying that community input is unnecessary; it means that a user may be unbanned on the whim of a single administrator, even in contravention to demonstrated community consensus. If that is a wrong impression, tell me so, but I don't consider this a problem because an administrator has been selected for the community's trust in their judgment, and so they are not likely to flout the community's wishes. An administrator's "willingness" to unblock should be bases on their assessment of the community's situation, probably even after explicitly asking for opinions if they are unsure, and not just whim. Administrators who do continually take controversial and unfounded actions may be desysopped. To me, that sentence makes perfect sense in the context of the first sentence, which explains that the act of banning requires community consensus, implicit or explicit: "The Wikipedia community, taking decisions according to appropriate community-designed policies with consensus support, or (more rarely) following consensus on the case itself." You will find that administrators are a diverse group. Even if all 1,185 administrators agreed that user X was odious enough to merit a ban, a community discussion consisting of admins and non-admins that shows a consensus otherwise (if such were possible or ever likely to happen) would still sway many of them to unblock the user against their personal opinions, and take the case to arbitration as too complex a case for a community ban. Dmcdevit·t 23:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Alright...but that's the exact purpose of CN, is to have such a discussion! Indeed, if I saw a strong showing of support from established non-admin editors for an unblock of someone, I'd think very hard about it. The comparison to the old Quickpolls is a straw man. Yes, obviously, the quickpolls bit is a bad idea. CN is not a vote, it's not a case of "Well, sorry, but 52.3% of editors on the CN decided you ought to be banned. Goodbye now." It's a venue where concerns regarding a ban or leading one to believe such a step might be appropriate can be addressed and discussed. As brought up above, even the ArbCom couldn't really override a genuine consensus among admins, and neither can the CN! If a lot of people on the CN say "Come on, we should (un)block this guy", but there's not one administrator willing to do so, nothing happens. The CN has been useful, though, in bringing some problematic editors to light, in cases where before admins may not have been aware of the misbehaving editor. Granted, there are other ways to do that (though the CN has resulted in some pretty comprehensive discussions in some such cases).However, the CN has at times been used to implement lesser sanctions, much as the ArbCom does with remedies such as topic or article bans. That's an extremely useful purpose, and not replicatable by the "no administrator will undo it" rationale. There's no button an admin (or anyone) can hit to prohibit an editor from editing a given article, so such sanctions would have to be imposed by consensus of the community. And even then, administrative consensus comes into play-if someone says "X violated their topic ban and edited Y!", and no one cares enough to go block X, nothing in fact happened at all. On the other hand, if X is disrupting Y, and has kept it up despite being told to stop, admins have a clear rationale to go stop him, and a clear view of the concerns that lead to the need to do so. So, once again, why not simply do both? Policy should reflect reality on the ground, after all. State that editors have been banned by discussion leading to a consensus at CN (because that's happened), and that they also can be banned simply by being indef-blocked and finding that not one single admin is willing to unblock them (which also does in reality happen). Maybe direct editors to the CN as a central place to bring up concerns about community bans. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
You said "State that editors have been banned by discussion leading to a consensus at CN (because that's happened), and that they also can be banned simply by being indef-blocked and finding that not one single admin is willing to unblock them (which also does in reality happen)." What I am trying to say is that is what the very first sentence already establishes: "The Wikipedia community, taking decisions according to appropriate community-designed policies with consensus support, or (more rarely) following consensus on the case itself." I am concerned about this effort to formalize the CSN into the banning policy, though. Saying that community bans may occur as the result of community consensus is sufficient. Admins are meant to be able to tell what is consensus and what isn't; whether it occurs on the CSN or doesn't. To be frank, any admin who thinks that only a discussion that occurred on the CSN can achieve such a result (not saying anyone has claimed this here) doesn't understand consensus. So why mandate it in the policy now? This is the problem with instruction creep: you think you are just providing helpful pointers, but in reality, you are codifying troll/wikilawyer fodder ("{{unblock|It wasn't endorsed on the CSN per [[WP:BAN]]!!!11. ~~~~"). It's simply time for the regular instruction pruning. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy on purpose; there is no need to use the CSN. And if it is really solely consensus discussions and not votes, and so there is no wikipolitical reason to push it, other than it being a convenient centralized forum, then what we have is sufficient (somehow people managed to find WP:AN before without it being linked to from the community banning policy section), and the most that is needed is a mention in the See Also section. Dmcdevit·t 08:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
A see also link would work, I think. I think we're mainly in agreement-I wouldn't want it to say the only way a community ban can occur is discussion on CN, because that's just not in reality the case, and it would be a pain in the ass to have to drag every drop-dead obvious case there. At the same time, it's useful in some circumstances. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I've made a change to that effect. Please review. Dmcdevit·t 19:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Does negative consensus count too? See the abandoned Wikipedia:Quickpolls. I'm worried about the community sanction noticeboard creeping closer to that. It's probably not a good idea to add more tasks to the csn until we've observed it for a little longer? --Kim Bruning 02:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Latest on community ban section

I've noted it's highly controversial. I think we've established that. Other changes, see the changes and edit summaries - David Gerard 19:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I've only made the one edit. I don't mind going slowly and mentioning here changes before making them, so as to avoid getting all edits reverted wholesale, like what happened last time. We still have "Administrators who block in these cases should be sure that there is a consensus of community support for the block" and "Community bans must be supported by a strong consensus" which are very redundant. The second sentence should simply be cut. Dmcdevit·t 00:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Not redundant; "block" ≠ "ban". -- Ben TALK/HIST 13:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Okay, so what necessary function does it serve if it is not redundant? Dmcdevit·t 18:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
As Louis Armstrong said when asked to define jazz, "Man, if you don't know what it is, don't mess with it!" ... A ban is a social construct applied to a person (no matter what accounts he uses), a block is a mechanical barrier applied to an account's posting ability (other than its own talk page). The person may be banned and yet not all accounts were blocked (though once discovered they may be); or the (only) account may be blocked (e.g. a username indefblock) and yet the person not be banned. A ban may be limited to an article or topic or even the vicinity of another user -- limited restrictions that a block can't specify. These differences are what make having both terms not redundant, and make having policies for each not redundant, and make requiring consensus for each not redundant. In particular, a single admin has already the ability to block any user (including other admins or even Jimbo, as recently demonstrated again)... but that's not the same thing as having consensus from the community for a ban of that user. -- Ben TALK/HIST 07:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I know what the difference between a block and a ban is. I haven't suggested the blocking and banning policies are redundant. After all, this is the banning policy, so it seems like both of those uses in the two sentences I cited are the same: where ban and block overlap, when an account is banned and blocked. So the sentences are redundant. I'm asking what is the functional benefit of having that second sentence. Dmcdevit·t 07:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
If anything is superfluous, it is the first sentence which talks about block, not the second one which talks about ban. After all, this is the policy about bans. -- Vision Thing -- 19:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Go ahead, then. My point is to reduce the redundancy. Dmcdevit·t 22:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

As I see it, main problem is in the first sentence of the section There have been situations where a user has exhausted the community's patience to the point where he or she finds themselves indefinitely blocked by an administrator—and no one is willing to unblock them. In my opinion, administrators shouldn't indefinitely block users unless that action is backed by a strong community consensus or decision by Arbitration Committee. -- Vision Thing -- 19:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. That was put in once before and taken out once before; and, even while it was in, it did not have consensus here to equate such an admin action to a community consensus, or "admins" to "community". -- Ben TALK/HIST 20:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Non administrators cannot unblock a user. That's a software reality. As I've said before, admins do routinely block or unblock on the basis of community support, so the notion that saying There have been situations where a user has exhausted the community's patience to the point where he or she finds themselves indefinitely blocked by an administrator—and no one is willing to unblock them in any way implies that an administrator has free reign to act without commnity support doe snot follow, either from the reality of adminship, or the rest of this policy itself. You're reading it out of context. Dmcdevit·t 22:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Community bans

Because this is a controversial area, explicitly noting here the edits just made.

(1) Fixed grammar to have agreement in tense and number ("where he or she finds themselves indefinitely blocked by an administrator" → "where he or she has been indefinitely blocked by an administrator"). Removed overbroad presumption of motive and awareness ("no one was willing to unblock" -- this is more than we can really know), state action or inaction ("no other administrator lifted the block").

(2) What notice board is "relevant"? Specify, so people know where to go to post or read or watchlist. Put sentences in sequence of action: list on WP:BANNED after consensus, not before. Old: <<Administrators who block in these cases should be sure that there is a consensus of community support for the block, and may note the block on a relevant noticeboard. The user should be listed on Wikipedia:List of banned users (under "Community"). Community bans must be supported by a strong consensus. The community may impose either topic bans or general editing bans.>> → New: <<Administrators who block in these cases should be sure that there is a consensus of community support for the block, by noting the block for review on the community sanction noticeboard. Community bans must be supported by a strong consensus. The community may impose either topic bans or general editing bans. If consensus exists for a general editing ban, the user should be listed on Wikipedia:List of banned users (under "Community").>> Note that this also restores some (not all) of the text that was removed without a consensus for the removal. -- Ben TALK/HIST 21:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

(3) Restored more of the text that had been removed without consensus for the removal (" and should never be enacted based on agreement between a handful of admins or users"); added the word "public" between "strong" and "consensus", to clarify that this should not be an email, IRC, or other private/offwiki discussion, as charged in some prior disputes. Sentence now reads: "Community bans must be supported by a strong public consensus, and should never be enacted based on agreement between a handful of admins or users." -- Ben TALK/HIST 22:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Ben, admins deal with a lot of things on Wikipedia. Needless bureaucracy should not be one of them, nor should second-guessing. I'm not going to ask you to revert your changes, but I am going to make something very clear: people are not going to follow these rules. There backlogs to be dealt with and an encyclopedia to be written, and they take priority. I respect the fact that you are trying to codify things and make every last bit explicit, but it is not helpful. Picaroon (Talk) 22:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
You've completely changed the meaning again without any agreement, and at the same time accused others of doing things "without consensus". This is just more of your push to formalize WP:CSN as a mandated legal process, and is wrong. You should not have changed "and may note" to "by noting" as that makes it mandatory when, as we've discussed above, carrying out discussions may only be necessary for controversial or contested actions. Please see #Harmonious solution? for why prescriptions like saying it must take place on WP:CSN are bad. It was added to the "See also" section to resolve the problem of pointing people to a potential resource without mandating a process. "no one is willing to unblock them" is much different from "no other administrator lifted the block" and again, is a change in meaning from the historical understanding of a ban. Dmcdevit·t 22:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, let's just leave it alone. We have CN for controversial or difficult cases. But there are a lot of cases that are pretty obvious that someone needs an indef-block and is not welcome to come back. We don't need to drag those anywhere for some formal "ratification". If someone objects, or an admin indicates that they're willing to reverse the block (or no block has yet been placed but one may be called for), then we need to discuss the matter. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
At the risk of sounding like a "me too", I agree that this is a bit too prescriptive. Let's keep it simple. --Tony Sidaway 23:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
"You've completely changed the meaning again" -- Translation: restored the provision that had been there for five months, stable and acted upon, but then was "boldly" removed during the middle of contentious (=non-consensus) debate; and noted the reversion here for discussion. But rather than follow the "bold, revert, discuss" cycle, the "bold" deletion has now simply been repeated. You accuse me of making a "change" for restoring the status quo ante of the previous five months, as though I'd just now created the provision myself.

"and at the same time accused others of doing things 'without consensus'." -- When there's no consensus to change, the default is the status quo, in this case the version that was stable for five months. If that's boldly deleted, then reverted and discussed, that's WP:BRD. But if it's simply deleted again while still disputed, that's edit warring.

"This is just more of your push to formalize WP:CSN"... -- No, this is not my proposal, not any kind of change, WP:CSN has been in place and actively functioning for months already, and I had nothing to do with proposing or creating it. Again, this is status quo, yet you treat it as a "change". Your "push" to "de-formalize" the existing noticeboard, and delete the five-months-stable policy provision, is the change at issue, and if there is no consensus then that change should not take place. -- Ben TALK/HIST 12:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

MFD underway, resume protected version until resolved

Since Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard was opened to formally resolve community consensus on whether the existing WP:CSN page and procedure should be deleted, these repeated "bold deletions" of WP:CSN from WP:BAN#Community ban should not be resorted to, especially since they're not following the cycle of "bold, revert, discuss" anyway. If the MFD consensus is to delete, then let policy reflect that. Unless and until that happens, the status quo ante should remain in place, especially as the noticeboard is still functioning and policy should reflect that reality. The page had been protected as of 13:13, 23 April 2007, by Phaedriel, to prevent edit-warring, and once it was unprotected the edit-war resumed. I'm restoring that version and requesting reprotection until the MFD is resolved, to keep the status quo ante in place. -- Ben 06:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

"protected version"? There is no such thing: protection is for whichever version it happens to land on, and is not an endorsement. That one version was protected is no reason to revert back to it blindly when no agreement on that has been reached here. In fact, it seems deceptive to me. If there is edit warring here (which seems a bit presumptuous), it is you with the most aggressive reverting here. You've managed to make a solely bureaucratic demand for protection of your version without engaging the issues at hand. Dmcdevit·t 06:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
"That one version was protected is no reason to revert back to it blindly when no agreement on that has been reached here." From Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, it looks like we start with the status quo ante (the policy that was stable for five months, governing a noticeboard that is still up and running); you boldly delete it, I restore it, we discuss,... and until that discussion's resolved we don't repeat the deletion. (1. Boldly make the desired change to the page. 2. Wait until someone reverts your change or makes another substantial edit. DO NOT Revert back! 3. Discuss with the reverter (don't go for discussion with too many people at once). Once you reach agreement, start the cycle again by making the agreed change.) As you say, "no agreement on that has been reached here." Until it is, the default needs to be the version before your "bold" deletion. On top of that, the proposal to delete WP:CSN is under discussion at an MFD; when that's finally resolved, we can take that result as guidance. If the MFD's outcome deletes the noticeboard, clearly the policy should also omit it. Otherwise, it should stay. Let's not end-run the consensus process. Right? -- Ben 09:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
What does the MFD on the community sanction noticeboard have to do with the banning policy, which we've already agreed should not refer to any specific noticeboard? This is, besides, as Dmcdevit points out, a quite unprecedented and needlessly bureaucratic, not to say unreasonable, demand. --Tony Sidaway 09:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
The five-months-stable version of WP:BAN#Community ban does refer to the community sanction noticeboard, and conversely the noticeboard's header explains that it is "a forum for the discussion of community bans, including topical bans." The noticeboard is supposed to follow policy, and the policy is supposed to mention the noticeboard (since "policy describes what we do") That's the status quo. If the MFD results in deleting the noticeboard, then the policy should omit mention of it (since again "policy describes what we do"). Thus that MFD has a lot to do with the banning policy, specifically the "Community ban" section. Let's see that outcome, not end-run it. -- Ben 10:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
You missed the boat. --Tony Sidaway 10:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
You mean the Good Ship "we've already agreed"? No, that sank on launch, since Navou reverted the deletion, Durova reverted the deletion, I reverted the deletion, and that doesn't seem like we've agreed on the deletion. To keep deleting without that agreement is not following WP:BRD. -- Ben 10:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I've no idea what you mean. Wikipedia administrators enforce bans and our policy document describes how we do it. --Tony Sidaway 10:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
But this is not just about how bans are enforced, it is also about how they are discussed and decided, and where and by whom. (The "Community" is not composed solely of administrators.) -- Ben 11:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely. But nor is it composed solely of chaps who hang around on Community sanction noticeboard all day waiting for the tumbrils to roll by. --Tony Sidaway 11:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Ben, whether or not anyone thinks that WP:CSN is a good thing, by this point in the discussion it definitely appears that everyone except you says that the policy description should say that bans must be discussed at WP:CSN. The fact that the noticeboard exists and results in bans does not change the fact that bans still occur without it. Bans are decided by community consensus, but it is the admins who must decide whether there is such consensus, and it doesn't matter whether they find it at WP:CSN, WP:AN/I, or anywhere else. JPD (talk) 14:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
"it definitely appears that everyone except you says that the policy description should say that bans must be discussed at WP:CSN." -- Including Navou and Durova? Well, who am I to argue with the people who put so much effort into developing the process? All right, let's add that provision. I myself would have let Jimbo and ArbCom announce their own ban decisions without having to be ratified by CSN, as WP:BAN and WP:BANNED indicate now, but if everyone else feels that "bans must be discussed at WP:CSN", I'll not stand in their way... once the MFD is resolved, because who knows what that will decide about CSN.

Notice, if there's such great concern that banning discussions may become vigilante lynch mobs pursuing personal grudges, putting those discussions in one public archived forum devoted to that topic alone lets every concerned Wikipedian watchlist and monitor those discussions, and check the archives regularly, to halt abuses at once. If the discussions were to take place not only all over Wikipedia but off it, on chatboards, mail-lists, and IRC channels, how could all these concerned people ever hope to monitor them all, or see archives? The lynch mobs could form unseen by anyone else, since no-one else would even know where to look. If the claims presented in favor of banning turned out to be utterly false, or if exculpatory evidence wasn't considered, how could anyone establish that? Or if another Robdurbar came out with dozens of bans as well as blocks, falsely claiming strong consensus support in email or IRC, how could anyone prove otherwise with no access to the logs? The irony of the anti-CSN arguments is that whatever CSN does, right or wrong, is in one stable and public place for its record to be criticized... but if it's deprecated, then the alternatives may not stay in one place, may not be public, may not keep records, and thus might be impossible to monitor for such wrongdoing, or to catch and fix errors. If the sanction discussions are archived, but scattered among all the other topics discussed at ANI or AN, it will make reviewing the sanction decisions that much harder. All the problems CSN is blamed for could easily be worse without it. -- Ben TALK/HIST 01:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Ben. I suspect you knew that I meant to say "everyone except you agrees that the policy description should not say that community bans must (or even should) be discussed at WP:CSN". Most of the discussion on this page is about that very point, and while Durova and Navou are supportive of WP:CSN, you are the only person I have read claiming recently that it is policy that blocking admins "should note the block on the Community sanction noticeboard". This is too rigid, and does not reflect practice. The question of whether CSN is good and should stay, which is being dealt with at the MfD, is secondary to this, and so is a red herring. Talking about discussions off Wikipedia is even more of a red herring, because noone is advocating that, and at any rate, it shouldn't be about claiming consensus or having to prove consensus, even if linking to discussions is helpful. You say the problems could be worse without CSN, but were they? But no matter how useful CSN is or isn't, the point is that it should not be described as necessary in the policy description. JPD (talk) 13:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
The "Community ban" section was originally posted by Jossi on 7 November 2006, as

There have been situations where a user has exhausted the community's patience to the point where he or she finds themselves blocked. Administrators who block in these cases should be sure that there is widespread community support for the block, and should note the block on WP:ANI as part of the review process. Additionally, "community ban" wording should be noted in the block log. With such support, the user is considered banned and must be listed on Wikipedia:List of banned users (under "Community"). Community bans must be supported by a strong consensus and should never be enacted based on agreement between a handful of admins or users.

Note that the "should" (not may) note-the-block-on-noticeboard was in the original section; it is not a "change" of policy to keep that in. (The specific page for the block review was changed from WP:ANI to WP:CSN in February to make it clearly a community discussion).

What is a change of policy is to take that out, and to take the specific name of the block-review page out, and to say that the admin's block becomes a ban without such review and support -- as the change states, ..."he or she has been indefinitely blocked by an administrator—and no one is willing to unblock them. Users blocked under these circumstances are considered to have been "banned by the Wikipedia community" (even though the community never reviewed the decision!) -- and to delete "should never be enacted based on agreement between a handful of admins or users", which means all the "consensus support" needed is such a handful's.

For all the accusations of "lynch mob" that were thrown at WP:CSN, this change alters policy to authorize roving lynch mobs; one block-happy admin with two yea-saying friends' support in IRC or email could meet the new policy's requirements -- and since no notice need be posted on any board (they "may" be but needn't), all those concerned citizens (who could have watchlisted and monitored WP:CSN) will have no way to monitor these banning discussions, let alone comment on them. This doesn't make anything less "convoluted" or "bureaucratic", it only changes "who decides community bans" from the community to the admins.

That's a major change, a drastic change, in what the "Community ban" section has been since its creation; and it doesn't have consensus, it has been "boldly" made over objections and then repeated after reversions [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] -- which isn't what WP:BRD says to do. -- Ben TALK/HIST 01:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

That's a rather hypocritical claim, when you are the one with the most reverts. As for ""boldly" made over objections," that's the point. You are distinctly in the minority here, but won't give up. (Jossi agreed with the change, too, incidentally.) You keep repeating the exact same nonsense ("one block-happy admin with two yea-saying friends' support in IRC or email could meet the new policy's requirement") that has been replied to adequately before. The very first sentence is: The Wikipedia community, taking decisions according to appropriate community-designed policies with consensus support, or (more rarely) following consensus on the case itself. Clearly it still mandates consensus, and your assertion that it becomes a cabalistic admin prerogative is simply wrong. Your suggestion that discussion lives or dies with the CSN is fearmongering and distortion, with no connection to what others are actually arguing (that discussion, which should take place for controversial cases, need not be mandated to take place at CSN). Here's a review:
Take your pick: all of them are are responding to the exact same argument, usually by you. In fact, I just quoted myself quoting myself. This isn't the way for you to conduct a discussion; if you won't actually respond to people's reasoned arguments, and instead prefer to repeat yourself ad infinitum, please find something better to do with your time, so I can do something more useful than this. This is not meant to be an argumentum ad nauseam attrition war. Dmcdevit·t 18:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Ben, I don't care when particular phrases ended up in the policy description page - I care about whether they reflect practice and consensus, as well as whether they fit with the spirit of Wikipedia. It is good to focus on the issues, rather than who is reverting what.

For all the accusations of "lynch mob" that were thrown at WP:CSN, this change alters policy to authorize roving lynch mobs; one block-happy admin with two yea-saying friends' support in IRC or email could meet the new policy's requirements -- and since no notice need be posted on any board (they "may" be but needn't), all those concerned citizens (who could have watchlisted and monitored WP:CSN) will have no way to monitor these banning discussions, let alone comment on them. This doesn't make anything less "convoluted" or "bureaucratic", it only changes "who decides community bans" from the community to the admins.

Really? In your bizarre scenario, any block-unhappy admin could overturn the block. Any other block-unhappy could object to the block, possibly even by posting on a relevant board, and it would soon be clear whether or not the user has been banned by community consensus. This is how consensus works for most things on Wikipedia. No matter what bureaucracy there is or isn't, even whether or not someone is unilaterally included on a "list of banned users", it will still be the community that supports bans, and particular parts of the community who place the actual blocks, both before and after discussion. Anyway, as Dmcdevit says, repeating arguments and absurd hypotheticals isn't going to get us anywhere. JPD (talk) 14:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)