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

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

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

text: I don't think that's a good idea. Nearly everything that links to it refers to wikipedia:common knowledge. I picked CNB as the shortcut because that one only had several links, not dozens. Picaroon 01:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template updates 

message: I have placed werdna bot on the page, if you want the notice to go away, I think I can do that without doing away with the archiving.  Thoughts? Navou banter / review me 00:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * I have changed the archive code from 5 to 3 days. Navou banter / review me 01:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive service 

message: I may have missed some of this history of whatever discussion prompted this (I see none here), but this page seems a bit out of place. Wouldn't this be better at someplace like the Village Pump instead? Isn't this needlessly fragmenting things? IronGargoyle 02:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Possibly. See Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Should_we_initiate_a_new_noticeboard.3F.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  07:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the link. I shall review. IronGargoyle 16:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Community noticeboard 

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

message: It states quite clearly at the top of the page: 
While comments from all editors are welcome, please note that "voting" won't be taking place, including on proposed community bans. Ejecting an editor from the community does not rest solely on simple majorities, or even supermajorities.
Yet people appear to be voting on proposed community bans (such as CroDome's) as if it were an RfA or similar (i.e. bolding their opinion, !votes like "Support", etc). This is really dissappointing. I don't think that the Community Noticeboard should be used for everyone to pile on a disliked user.. whatever happened to consensus, discussion, the dispute resolution process? I know that this page is meant to be used for, amongst other things, such proposed bans, and it will attract a lot of disputes but this just feels wrong. --Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 23:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I apologize, I was not aware that bolding one's opinion meant 'voting'. However, each person that has 'voted' according to the definition, has supplied reasons behind their so-called 'vote'. I see nothing wrong with this. Those who make the final decision should in turn disregard the number of so-called 'votes' but take into account the arguments supporting them. Therefore, I see nothing wrong with the discussion regarding a community block for user CroDome. Maîtresse 23:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

text: * There are a number of examples where a user has simply left a message along the lines of "Support, this user deserves a ban" and then left with no participation in the discussion. This is not working towards consensus and besides isn't fair on a user who has a ban proposed against them. Besides that, bans are meant to be used at the end of dispute resolution, not for a user who has not so much as been blocked! This is ridiculous and completely out of line with policy. Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 23:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was referring to the CroDome discussion, where users have supported their so-called 'votes'. Maîtresse 23:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

text: it is helpful to see the trend of discussion in a quick summary, but yes,  there are other words to use the "support" or "oppose" ; individualized wording might differentiate this page from other processes.In terms of a ban, as I understand it what we would be doing is recommending, but i do not fully understand where that recommendation goes. DGG 23:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

text: * Then lets fix it... Should we edit the top of the page to state "opinions with no rationale will be discounted" or some wording?  Thanks Navou banter / contribs 23:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Something along those lines sounds good. Maîtresse 23:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

text: * I have boldly made the change. Navou banter / contribs 00:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sigh... 

message: Blasted semiprotection! Now I'll have to go to the ANI! 68.39.174.238 05:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or register... MastCell 06:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But it does bring up the question as to exactly why this page is semiprotected. I just checked through this page's entire edit history (it's not too long... yet) and I saw relatively little IP vandalism. Rather I saw quite a lot of legitimate discussion from IP accounts. Anon users are indeed still part of the community so I think they should be allowed to participate here. —Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 15:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree completely.  I think it's an absolute travesty when community discussion pages like this one and the villiage pumps are semi-protected.  ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 15:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

text: But the people who are abusing it and the people who are losing it are not the same people.  The people who abuse it (hopefully) lose their edit priveleges entierly by being blocked.  Those who suffer by having the page semi-protected are innocent users.  ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 18:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And as I pointed out above, there was actually very little IP vandalism that actually happened; definitely less than ten such edits out of nearly a thousand legitimate ones for this page. That wouldn't warrant semi protection on an article much less here. —Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 18:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

text: It still doesn't explain why semi-protection was applied to begin with. I have half a mind to remove it, but I'll ask for more opinions. Titoxd(?!?) 19:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well it obviously wasn't me, being not a sysop. The best idea is always to ask the protecting sysop why they protected the page to begin with, as opposed to speculation. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 19:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I've unprotected the page, there's just not enough vandalism going on. We can live with the occasional revert. --Conti|✉ 19:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you there Conti.  I was going to do it myself after reading this thread. Semi-move protecting isn't a bad idea... if we need to move this it will be after a discussion of some kind. ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 02:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Argh! 

message: This page is chaotic. We should create templates for community ban requests -- along the lines of  and possibly even one like  to notify the user in question -- to help keep things organized. --N Shar 23:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please no... heavens no.  Community bans are serious enough that to trivialize them with templates would be a step in the wrong direction. These things a discussions and attempts to form consensus, give evidence, etc... not votes. ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 02:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree. No. If you want to have a user banned, at least notify him of the discussion personally. Doing it with a template is unnecessarily inflammatory. Titoxd(?!?) 02:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fair enough, but I still think the page is rather messy, and some sort of template could help organize it. When I speak of , I don't mean to suggest that the discussion associated with the template would be in the same style as AfD. That template has nothing to do with !votes or their absence. Community bans are indeed serious -- all the more reason to keep the discussion organized. If a user can't navigate his/her own community ban discussion, that would be a very serious problem. --N Shar 03:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you could create a template so that we can better see what you are intending.  Then we can discuss this test template.  Navou banter / contribs 00:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Templates for ban requests 

message: I'd like to request that, in the future, people leading discussions about community bans or related issues should not try to use preferential voting to express a consensus. List a few options (the fewer the better) and get people to support or oppose them, so that anyone reading the page can see whether there's a consensus for each option.
I'm a fan of using preferential voting in many situations that require actual voting, but a page like this fails at its intended purpose if it takes a calculator to figure out what the consensus is. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ  11:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Don't obfuscate consensus. 

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

message: In the few weeks since its conception, this noticeboard is already rife with topics that might as easily fit on the village pump or admin board. In other words, in effect it serves no clear purpose at the moment except as being Yet Another Page to watchlist if one wishes to keep track of what is happening. >Radiant< 17:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The page being used outside of it's intended purpose is not tantamount to the page having no purpose. To me this is the place to deal with discussions of community bans and such that would normally clutter up other noticeboards. All noticeboards get off topic posts, I believe the best solution would be increased clarification and enforcement of the scope of the page. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 17:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: *I realize that, but the point is that it is almost exclusively used outside of its intended purpose. I'm sure this board was well-intended, but that doesn't change the fact that at the moment, it is superfluous and redundant. I'm not sure how a Big Notice would fix that considering it doesn't really help on the admin board either. >Radiant< 17:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be fine if we came up with well defined purposes for each board, of course you are always going to have to re-direct some queries. —— Eagle101 Need help? 22:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

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

text: *I agree, so let's do that! >Radiant< 08:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "the place to deal with discussions of community bans and such that would normally clutter up other noticeboards"? That seems to me like a bad idea. This page looks like a fork of the Adminitrators' Noticeboard in the form of attempted revival of quickpolls, putting the question of bans to community votes. That is very much not what community bans are about or how they are arrived at, and the whole conception of the page seems wrongheaded. If I ever have need to discuss a potential community ban, it won't be here. Dmcdevit·t 09:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

text: **Take a look at Wikipedia:Community_noticeboard#Unblock_of_Thekohser.3F, which was addressed as a simple request for comment and immediately turned into a severely misguided attempt at decision-making by vote. At present, whereas, I would hope, people attempting to vote on ANI are frequently corrected, it feels as if this was created with  that in mind. Dmcdevit·t 05:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  That figures... 

message: *Looking at the current posts,
**Community ban on Gordon Watts belongs on ANI.
**Jonathan Ryan indef blocked belongs on ANI.
**Comban on Classicjupiter also belongs on ANI.
**Are we supposed to check this page, belongs on this talk page.
**User abusing minor edits belongs on VPP.
**Kurdistan-related categories belong on CFD and/or DRV
**Arbitration closure note, well, I don't know, they get advertised anywhere.
**Posting of thesis/term paper probably belogns on VPA, or Copyvio page
**GAC notice belongs on RFC or GO or the wikiproject board
**User removing context MIGHT belong here if we want a page for "problems with user conduct that don't require admin intervention", although (1) VPA already does that, and (2) not everybdoy knows the difference. Otherwise, ANI.
**Adding 100+ extlinks ditto, or on the EL talk
**Proposed indefblock on Buzzard, ANI again
**Community ban on Miracle, ditto
**BLP noticeboard needs help, CENT or RFC or GO or A but not here
**C/P move: RM
**Clerk discussion: arguably, the village pump; was advertsied on ANI anyway
**BLP review - I think we've got RFR for that.
*So just about nothing that is posted here could not also have been covered elsewhere. Centralization is GOOD. Fragmentation is not. >Radiant< 10:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with your contention that Community Bans belong on WP:ANI Radiant!.  Community bans are decided by the Community, not by a subset of admins, which is why this board was created, as a place for the community to discuss issues.  I agree that centralization is nice, but there are times it is damn near impossible to get a post in at WP:ANI without multiple edit conflicts.  As we seem to be doing away with more admin related pages (WP:PAIN, etc) it is just putting more strain on a page that is already overloaded.  I agree some of the other posts could go elsewhere, but community bans don't really belong on ANI.--Isotope23 14:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, I just squeezed in my response to Radiant above.--Isotope23 15:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with Bitnine.  The purpose of the community noticeboard, as I understand it, is to keep "community ban / block" discussions out of WP:ANI, because those decisions are up to the community rather than only administrators.  However, I agree with Radiant in that this noticeboard seems to have been rather badly thought-out.  Why wouldn't user conduct WP:RFCs suffice for allowing a broad-spectrum community input on community ban issues?  Or, for that matter, why should their being discussed on WP:ANI be thought of as unfair to non-admin members of the community?  Anyone is free to post there, after all.  The relevant text at the top of the noticeboard is: "If you would like to discuss issues that the community should be aware of, such as proposed community bans, feel free to post them here. The administrators' noticeboard is more geared towards admin-specific issues, and the village pump is centered around discussing policies and proposals; this page is for things directly relevant to the Wikipedia community at large, of both encyclopedic and administrative nature."  I think it's not really true that the admin noticeboard deals with admin-specific issues (although it maybe should), but why should this be distinct from the Village pump?  Mangojuicetalk 14:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text: *I see your point, I just don't know if I agree that keeping the discussion at ANI is the best way forward.  Regardless though, this is a gray area that needs to be better defined.--Isotope23 15:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I think it's good to have community ban discussion somewhere other than ANI for two reasons.  One, ANI is an admin domain.  In theory people should always be free to comment there, but in some discussions it gets to feel like the home turf of admins, and I wouldn't want anyone to be discouraged from participating.  But more importantly, community ban discussions should probably take more time than is possible for an ANI thread, and ANI has a heavy load already and community ban threads can be very long and involved.  BUT -- this noticeboard should be clearly defined as for that purpose only.  A change needs to be made to Wikipedia:Community noticeboard/Header. Mangojuicetalk 15:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *My thoughts exactly.  What we need here is clearer definition of this forum.--Isotope23 15:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I agree that this forum needs a more defined role. Looking at Radiant's analysis above, this page seems to be used most often for proposing and discussing community bans/sanctions, so I'll say a few words about those. I suppose they could be moved to an existing forum, though many of them are already overloaded. Also, as pointed out by Mangojuice, community ban discussions tend to hand around longer and thus take up more space for longer periods of time. For this reason I'm not sure we'd want to shift the burden onto ANI. I could see RfC being used for community ban discussions, though the format would likely need some tweaking. If comm bans were handled through RfCs (not sure I like that idea), this board likely wouldn't see much activity. In any case, the first step does seem to be to define exactly what this board is. ChazBeckett 17:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Analysis 

message: I am going to build a bot to archive this notice board (will be listed at bot approvals for BAG action) .  Any objections? Navou banter / contribs 13:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent idea.--Isotope23 14:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Um, doesn't Werdnabot do that already? –Henning Makholm 16:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, although the userbox is hidden. It last ran a few hours ago ChazBeckett 17:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not see its run this morning, and it looked like some old discussions were still on the page. Navou banter / contribs 00:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In theory it should be archiving any section where the most recent comment is at least two days old. In practice I believe that missing or malformed signatures might cause a section to be missed. ChazBeckett 00:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  archive bot 

message: I've updated the header.  Key changes: the purpose of the board is described to be for discussion of community bans and other actions requiring broad community support.  This allows for the ban discussions and also other discussions that really need to be somewhere more visible than the Village Pump.  Also, I've removed the standard Admin Noticebord disclaimer directing people to other reporting boards.  I also made a note that this page is not a substitute for WP:RFCs: I feel strongly about this.  RFCs are designed to help resolve disputes better than unstructured discussions do.  When a community ban is needed, it should be discussed, but we shouldn't be getting community input at the same time.  Although this might turn out to be a kind of RfC type forum, it should not be encouraged, and people should be reminded that RFCs are an option.  Mangojuicetalk 18:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * I like your wording to the header.  However, I disagree with the removal of the disclaimer. Navou banter / contribs 19:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * *shrugs* We should probably word it differently at least.  But go ahead and put it back, I don't mind. :)  Mangojuicetalk 20:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well you may have a very good reason you removed it, that I might be missing.  I do not want to revert you if this is the case.  It has been suggested that the discussions were fragmenting to this board, I thought perhaps if the users knew where else to go (correctly go) that may ease the fragmentation/influx of posts inappropriate or non germane to this board.  What do you think? Navou banter / contribs 21:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I dunno.  I don't like the implication that people should be coming to WP:CN with a "message" to be processed, which is what all the advice looks like.  I think the header text already tells people where to head for other similar discussions.  Having that box there makes it look like this is a page for filing complaints which will then be handled by others, which is more of an Admin noticeboard kind of way of approaching problems.  Mangojuicetalk 21:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Header 

message: I've thought long and hard about this board. After reviewing the discussion that led up to its creation and the activity on the board since then, I still feel like this is needless procedural fragmentation fork of community discussion that serves no real purpose. The discussions which are sent here are largely arbitrary and and have led to unfortunate situations like that of the Essay strawpoll, which clearly should have been handled as a request for comment from the start. Nothing here seems like it couldn't be handled somewhere else (e.g. Village pump, Administrator's noticeboard). I know some are worried that "Administrator's Noticeboard" is a turn-off to members of the community who are not administrators, but I wouldn't be surprised if the admin/non-admin ratio at this noticeboard was actually higher than at the administrator's noticeboard itself. I do not doubt that this noticeboard was created in good faith and with the best of intentions, but I feel like it is an experiment that has failed. The discussion above regarding the purpose of the board is a perfect example. Unless anyone has any evidence that this board is effective at this unique location, I propose this board be marked as a rejected proposal/board/whatever and kept as an archive. I'm not sure if the talk page is the best location for this discussion. Perhaps a MfD would be the best outlet. It obviously shouldn't be deleted though. Any thoughts? IronGargoyle 00:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The AN was never meant for community decisions, it was meant as a place to notify administrators of a) information they should know, such as new policy or features and b) incidents that needed quick administrative intervention. I'm sorry, but the only reason you've given for why CN should be closed is the Essjay straw poll, which obviously was a mistake (and to be perfectly honest, shouldn't have been anywhere — it was removed from the RFC). You have ignored the numerous examples of successful community discussion that has already occurred at a brand-new board, which I don't think is fair. Basically, I don't know why you want to reject i; you haven't given an actual reason in my opinion. Respectfully, —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 00:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where are you getting your ideas about what AN is for? ANI is for quick administrative intervention; AN is for discussions relevant to administrators. What "successful" discussions have happened here that would not have been just as or more successful on the more-well-watched AN or village pump? It was never and is still not clear what belongs on the "Community noticeboard" that does not belong on AN or VP, and the only reason for its creation was that some people are scared of commenting on AN. —Centrx→talk • 01:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Durova, who is an admin, created this noticeboard. And she's not exactly scared of commenting on AN. --210physicq (c) 01:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know; the reason for creating it though is "although this noticeboard is open to everyone, its title does tend to scare away the unmopified crowd" . —Centrx→talk • 01:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

text: From the very top of WP:AN. Yes, you're correct, AN is for discussions regarding administrators (my description was more limiting than I intended it to be) — which is NOT what the CN was intended to be. Just take a jaunt through the archive to see successful discussions; I don't know whether they would have been more or less successful somewhere else because they didn't happen there, but I can tell you that most of them shouldn't have been somewhere else (in my opinion). Please note that I am not dismissing this suggestion, I'm simply asking for fully fleshed-out reasons with facts to back them up. I don't feel that the original post did so. If discussion yields valid reasons, then I'd be all for it. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 01:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: AN is for discussions which are relevant to administrators, not regarding administrators. The only use given for this noticeboard when it was created is "community bans", which require an administrator. There were not fully fleshed-out reasons with facts to create the noticeboard in the first place, but it seems to just be an unnecessary and less-frequented fork and duplicate (one that seems to have a lot more bizarre voting too). Come up with a well-defined purpose for this noticeboard before defending its existence. —Centrx→talk • 01:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't mean to nitpick, but community bans don't require administrators; they require the community to come to a consensus.  Blocks can then be issued by administrators to enforce a community ban.  It may seem like I'm splitting hairs, but I don't feel that way, and I think that the underlying point is the exact reason why this noticeboard was created — a lot of people think that bans (and other community decisions) are suggested, discussed, and implemented amongst administrators on administrators' noticeboards, which is simply not the case.  You and I know that's not the way it works, but a lot of people don't; perhaps all bans could be discussed on AN and we could employ a PR campaign to make it clear that everyone in the community is encouraged to participate, but it seems to me that this is the easiest and most inclusive solution.  I'm certainly not married to the idea, and if there is a consensus I certainly wouldn't put up a fight; I just think there are real issues with community involvement in decisions, and this is one way to get people who would otherwise be scared away involved.  —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 02:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A ban must be executed by an administrator, and in order for an administrator to do it there must be an administrator who thinks it should be done. —Centrx→talk • 02:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

text: But then where are people going to put malformed RfCs that don't have a second party to certify having tried to resolve the dispute?  Jkelly 00:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ANI, where they always are ;) --BigDT 05:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I think that a simple renaming of the Admin noticeboards might help alleviate some of the concerns presented.  The apostrophe in "Administrators'" does indicate possession and that probably does put off non-admin editors from fully participating on those pages (I know it does for me and I'm a relatively experienced editor).  --ElKevbo 09:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If community bans are discussed again on the ANI board, that in effect requires non-admins to keep the page on their watchlist. If there was a consensus that all community ban discussions should be kept open for a week, then non-admins could just check the page now and again. However, if community ban discussions are only kept open for around 24 hours, then non-admins are required to sift through a large volume of non-relevant material, if they want to be kept informed. I would suggest that having a separate page is more efficient and shows greater consideration to non-admins. Addhoc 12:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Strongly agree, with the suggestion to rename the "Administrators' noticeboard" to "Administrative noticeboard" (and redirect the CN to there). --Quiddity 20:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Agree I also agree with renaming to "Administrative noticeboard" --ZimZalaBim (talk) 14:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

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

text: Sam, this is a deliberate fork of WP:ANI where community bans / restrictions were discussed by the cabal (TINC).  The aim was not to increase process, but to facilitate more transparent and thoughtful debate and wider participation.  Several sanctions arrived at on this board have been reviewed by ArbCom and accepted as sound.  Guy (Help!) 14:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason for this board to exist seems to be the apparent conflict between 'community bans' being discussed on an 'administrators' noticeboard'. As the functional definition of a community ban is a block that no-one wants to lift, and only administrators can lift blocks, that's purely semantics, and would be far better addressed by changing four letters of the title of WP:AN rather than maintaining yet another noticeboard. As has already been said above. I'm not disputing that the board serves a purpose, because it clearly does, I'm disputing that it needs a separate page. The question is not whether the wheel spins, but whether the car really needs five of them. --Sam Blanning(talk) 18:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless of what happens with this board I would boldly change the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard to Wikipedia:Administrative noticeboard right away.  18:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Wel, the board was only started about a month ago, if that, so it's still in a very early stage ... it would probably be a better idea to readdress whether it is helpful in a few months. Neil (not Proto ►) 12:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to close Community noticeboard 

message: There is an issue with how much material is posted to both AN and ANI. Both are failing to scale very well as Wikipedia grows, so issues posted to AN, especially, are sometimes overlooked in the rush and are archived very quickly. Because of the unmanagable page lengths, we archive after 24 or 48 hours or something - not much, but still we often have 40+ threads there.
I don't know if the CN was a good idea or not - coming from Durova, it was certainly thought through and was offered as an idea much useful to the community, that goes without saying - but folding back into AN fails to solve the original problem at AN: too many people complaining, not enough time and personpower to deal with it.
Perhaps a useful centralised discussion could take place on how we could create a structure of some sort that might scale better? Working to solve the original issues would be more useful to us than simply closing a page now in order to deal with the consequences later.
Sorry if others have said the above already - I'm just back home and "train-lagged" from 48 hours going from Brussels to Equus in London to home again and all words are swimming by me :o) 〈REDVEЯS〉 20:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really see the argument for getting rid of it, and the person who proposed such a thing has "withdrawn" it anyway.  This seems to be serving its purpose well, I see no need to limit the discussion venues available here.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Sam, this is a deliberate fork of WP:ANI where community bans / restrictions were discussed by the cabal (TINC).  The aim was not to increase process, but to facilitate more transparent and thoughtful debate and wider participation.  Several sanctions arrived at on this board have been reviewed by ArbCom and accepted as sound.  Guy (Help!) 14:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason for this board to exist seems to be the apparent conflict between 'community bans' being discussed on an 'administrators' noticeboard'. As the functional definition of a community ban is a block that no-one wants to lift, and only administrators can lift blocks, that's purely semantics, and would be far better addressed by changing four letters of the title of WP:AN rather than maintaining yet another noticeboard. As has already been said above. I'm not disputing that the board serves a purpose, because it clearly does, I'm disputing that it needs a separate page. The question is not whether the wheel spins, but whether the car really needs five of them. --Sam Blanning(talk) 18:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless of what happens with this board I would boldly change the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard to Wikipedia:Administrative noticeboard right away.  18:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Arbitrary section break

message: I guess I misread people's feelings on this discussion page regarding the board's closure. Sorry for wasting everybody's time on this. I would have withdrawn the nom had I not been asleep at the time. I do want to point out that closure and archival seemed like MfD would be an appropriate location, (i.e. Esperanza). There is no point to delete a board with valid discussion. Merging was a secondary option for me. I'm still all for closing the board, but people don't seem to be with me on this. No big deal to me either way, I just thought it would help things run a little more smoothly. Best, IronGargoyle 15:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wel, the board was only started about a month ago, if that, so it's still in a very early stage ... it would probably be a better idea to readdress whether it is helpful in a few months. Neil (not Proto ►) 12:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Clarification and apology

message: I wasn't the one who created this noticeboard.  I proposed it, but Kim Bruning actually started the page shortly afterward. DurovaCharge! 22:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A second clarification 

message: Given the discussion above, and given that again there were no topics here that could not as easily belong on either the Admin board or the Village Pump, I think it is wise to suspend this board until we have a clear idea what it is for. Yes, the admin board has trouble scaling, and yes, it would be beneficial to have a clearer purpose to most boards. But creating "yet another" board solves none of these problems, and in fact aggravates them. So we need to discuss - what separate functions do we need a board for, and what clear title should we give them? >Radiant< 11:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:ROUGE. :D ViridaeTalk 11:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

text: * Not really, no.  It was launched as a more appropriate venue for discussions of community sanctions, rather than having such discussions on the admin noticeboards (which implies that non-admins should not contribute to the debate, something I don't think anybody wants).  Several sanctions form this board have been endorsed by ArbCom.  There is a legimitate debate to be had about the best venue and format for these discussions, and how we should word the headers and meta0information, but overall the creation of the board had pretty wide support at the time, it appears to function as designed at least some of the time, and there are ongoing debates which should not be summarily closed off without first finding an alternative venue.  Of course some poeple are going to come here hysterically calling for the desysopping of the admin who blocked them for inserting the verifiable fact that George W Bush eats babies, sourced from a really reliable issue of National Lampoon, but that's an issue for clerking.  We shut down WP:PAIN for good reasons, we need to have an appropriate venue for the discussion of community sanctions which does not have the problems that PAIN had.  Where are people supposed to go?  I think we need to fix it, not can it, but in any case there is no reason to shut it down while we debate the issue. This is not to say Radiant! is wrong, only that by pulling this we have to go back to something which was less good, remove something which ArbCom appear to see as giving at least reasonable transparency, and end up back where we started.  Fix, not close, this one.  Guy (Help!) 12:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Going to have to agree with Guy here. The Essjay controversy as well demonstrated the usefulness of this board when as a community that was very actively discussed here. That said in accord with Radiant!'s thinking I've read that "Adminstrator's" anything is wrong and limiting in terrms of giving the appearance that only folks with administrator tools are entitled to use such areas. The solution that I've seen in that regard is to rename these areas to "Administrative". That would certainly alleviate some of the concerns that Guy is talking about here. As a side note given that User:Radiant! was in an editing conflict with User:Badlydrawnjeff over "suspending" this board this proteciton was highly improper.  13:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

text: **No it wasn't, he reverted my edit while I was typing in the protection summary. >Radiant< 13:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: **And the minute you saw the conflict, you should have stopped.  Thankfully, someone's reversed you. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * Don't be silly.  The dispute did not exist before the action, there was no pre-existing conflict on this page, although the two of you seem these days to immediately take the opposing point of view to each other on pretty much anything.  For the most part I agree with radiant!, that less is more when it comes to process and rules, but this is a case where the board was set up for a specific purpose, and it's not clear where that purpose will be fulfilled if it's taken down, plus there are ongoing debates, so while a debate on status is completely appropriate I don't feel that closing it down is warranted just yet.  That is not to prejudge what consensus might emerge as to the ongoing scope and existence of this noticeboard.  Do please, though, see if you can bring yourself to forget that Radiant! is involved, since you seem to agree with everything he says on principle - my experience is that much of what he proposes makes good sense and serves the aim of culling the Wikikudzu. Guy (Help!) 14:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

text: * Yes, just that.  But should it be only sanctions, or should it be for other long-running debates?  Should it be for centralising discussion of policy mergers, for example?  I would say that it should be only for a kind of "RfC lite", where an obvious outcome is expected to be reached rapidly but we want to run it past a lot more eyes as a sanity check.  Gordon Watts is about the most complex we'd want this to get, anythign more should go to RfC or ArbCom.  Plus this page probably needs a bit of clerking to keep inappropriate stuff off, close debates and move complex cases to another more appropriate venue. Jeff, you could do that. Guy (Help!) 14:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I'd be glad to do so if people would have me do it.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

text: **That sounds reasonable. >Radiant< 14:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

text: * Cool.  Hopefully others will help, too.  It need not be too formal, just keeping things on track, diverting complex cases to a more appropriate venue, that kind of thing.  Hopefully quite a light touch, in keeping with the heated issues which are likely to come here.  If you can persuade Gordon Watts to post a maximum of 500 words per thread that would be a bonus :o) Guy (Help!) 14:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Now now, don't ask too much of me here... --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suspended 

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

message: I proposed the board to discuss community actions for two reasons: the above mentioned community ban discussions and Wikipedia:Community enforced mediation, which had garnered Jimbo's support and the support of several arbitrators.  That proposal is ready to go into a three month experimental phase.  The only reason I haven't taken that step already is because, as the originator of the proposal, I don't want to create the appearance of impropriety by taking off the proposal tag myself.
Potentially this board could handle other matters related to community decision making.  At my request, the arbitration clerks have started posting notices of closed cases here because such things are of interest to the entire community and are easier to locate here than on the high traffic administrator boards.
I never encouraged the Essjay discussion to lodge here: this isn't RFC.  This could handle other issues related to community decision making on an ad hoc basis.  Even if it does little more than house community ban discussions, it's an advantage to the project to archive those at one easily referenced location.  I've pored through the WP:AN and WP:ANI archives when I needed to cite past examples and it's ridiculously inefficient to store those decisions that way.
So if you want to enhance this board's purpose, set WP:CEM into motion. DurovaCharge! 15:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * I think the purpose is clear as stated in the /header "Welcome to the community action noticeboard. This forum was created for the discussion of community bans, or other sanctions requiring broad community input. "  If no objections I will remove the tag. Navou banter / contribs 15:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you very much. DurovaCharge! 15:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Note that I added that clarification in the header this morning (GMT) in response to the discussions above, and I am certainly not averse to something on the page which encourages ongoing debate about scope and purpose. That seems to em to e a good thing, especially with something this new. Guy (Help!) 16:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with the addition.  I however think that we should not suspend or place an unclear notice on this board.  Lets leave this basic purpose in the /header and flesh out from there.  I would fathom to say the board now has a clear defined purpose.  It can now be modified as need be and as consensus is achieved. Navou banter / contribs 20:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I disagree with this last part; any admin should be allowed to close the debate. I feel this is in danger of getting bogged down and legalistic. The point of the community ban thing, as opposed to having to trudge to ArbCom, was speed and efficiency in the case of serious troublemakers. We need to keep things lean. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I mostly agree that any admin should be allowed to close the debate, within the usual limits of not blocking people to gain advantage in content disputes. It's just more practical for some admins to do it than others. When a community-banned user appeals to Arbcom that they weren't treated fairly, it's expedient if Arbcom can quickly evaluate that the closing admin had no ball in the game, and decline to open the case. The challenge is to word it so that involved admins are encouraged to not close the debate, without giving banned users additional license to complain. We have a long tradition of community discussions being closed by uninvolved admins, and I don't see why community ban discussions are different. Kla'quot 07:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your proposed changes sound good to me. Thanks Durova. Kla'quot 16:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, also agree your proposed changes seem very sensible, thanks for all your effort in organising this. Addhoc 18:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I have not even bothered to read the banning policy, so take all this for what it's worth: why the need to notify and allow editors to respond to community ban proposals? It seems unnecessarily bureaucratic, legalistic and most importantly a waste of time. If there's a reasonable belief that an editor could provide a "defense" shouldn't the case go straight to ArbCom? Isn't the community ban process supposed to be a streamlined and efficient process, a minimum of fuss and not much time and effort expended—only for the obvious cases? Based on the ban discussions i've seen, the manner those editors went about "defending" themselves is the reason they were exhausting the communities patience in the first place. If a ban proposal needs statements in defense and legalistic procedures then isn't it better handled by the committee? Waste their time rather than the community's.—eric 17:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagree eric, I think we should be able to arrange a straightforward template that would only take a minute to post. Addhoc 18:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Eric, two of my links in the long statement above point to recent instances where a community banned editor appealed the decision to ArbCom and based the appeal in part on those points: since these problem users were blocked while the decision was ongoing and not notified until after it closed, the community effectively denied them the means of defense.  I wouldn't establish notification or defense as absolute rights.  Having dealt with many problem editors, I know how such standards could be gamed.  Yet it's reasonable to let the person know what's up so long as they're reasonable enough to supply a prompt and topical response without exploiting the opportunity with further disruption.  ArbCom may decide this issue for the community if we don't decide it ourselves: the Committee is leaning toward opening a case for WP:RFAR#Request_to_review_indefinite_block_of_User:BabyDweezil. DurovaCharge! 20:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagree per Durova -- if the editor cannot make his or her voice heard, then effectively we're putting someone on trial without giving them the chance to speak. I actually would prefer the ArbCom to accept the case (although as of this posting it's sitting at 6/4/1/0) since it is not due process if accused user can't defend themselves. - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 04:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At the risk of WP:BEANS (which seems to be a small risk at this particular thead), certain types of disruption may render attempts at notification meaningless.  See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gundagai editors in which a disruptive user refused to register any account and edited through a shifting range of variable IP addresses.  In other cases a blocked editor could forfeit the option of a defense by abusing the privilege of editing his or her own user talk page until the talk page needs to be protected, or perpetrating ongoing abuse that hastens the community's decision.  The proposed language keeps the community options flexible.  The balance we need is to provide fair options to users who can offer a real defense without tying our hands when we deal with genuine trolling. DurovaCharge! 05:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Unclear" tag? 

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

message: ::::I'm confused about the point of this, as opposed to AN or AN/I. SlimVirgin (talk) 12:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: AN = things for administrator's attention. AN/I - incidents needing administrator investigation? Communikty Noticeboard (it seems) is for deciding on community bans, as oppossed to admin blocks. --`/aksha 12:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I'm still not convinced either that this board isn't redundant. >Radiant< 12:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I see it: AN: miscellanious things where you need the attention of an admin or all admins (alerting backlogs when adminbacklog is needed, telling admins about new software features that only apply to them, and a few oddball requests such as requesting a rename into another user's .js space or speedying a page on which the db-template isn't working (both of these have happened to me)); AN/I: requesting blocks of users who aren't obvious enough for AIV, requesting immediate administrator interference in an issue where the other noticeboards like AN3 and RFPP aren't appropriate, requesting a review of an admin action (often by the admin who took the action); CN: requesting community bans on users (I think). If I'm wrong after this long on Wikipedia, someone needs to clarify the headers yet again. --ais523 14:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I'm glad that you have a clear distinction. It would help if everybody else also had a clear distinction, and if their distinction matched yours. Please help in modifying the various page headers to make this work. >Radiant< 14:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The point

message: I have taken the liberty to add userchecks below the headers of sections on proposed community bans, because this gives a one-line linklist to available subpages -- and where there are no such subpages, to the reporting and/or summary pages. Format:    May I suggest this as possibly helpful? -- Ben TALK/HIST 00:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, thanks. Addhoc 18:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Using [[Template:Usercheck]] 

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

message: Please archive all closed community ban discussions.  Ban requests that demonstrate bad faith or ignorance of the process can be useful examples for how to refine community banning procedures.  Also, if a user keeps lodging frivolous requests it could become necessary to cite the archive of the threads that person started. DurovaCharge! 18:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * I usually archive everything, something I missed? Navou banter / contribs 18:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Ahh I see here.  Agreed, everything needs to make its way to the archives.  I believe trolling needs the closure/archive template and make its way to the archive. Navou banter / contribs 18:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks very much.  Cheers, DurovaCharge! 21:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving 

message: I have taken the liberty of closing the ban discussions with the default close template.  Does anyone with more expertise in the template namespace want to make us a better closing template for this purpose?  Navou banter / contribs 13:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If I were better at coding I'd lend a hand.  No objections from me if you try.  The current template looks adequate. DurovaCharge! 21:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, but exactly what are you looking for in a "better closing template"? Could you be a bit more specific about what you want to see changed? Because to me, the current closing seems to look fine, and serves its purpose well. --`/aksha 08:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps current is adequate then. I just don't like the color I reckon. Navou banter / contribs 05:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Close template 

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

message: No, really, it is not. For that reason I think that using bolded statements like support and oppose should be strongly discouraged as a way of thought here, or possibly be edited to de-bold them. >Radiant< 15:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:NOT a bureaucracy. I think that we shall look at what people are writing, not what they're highlighting. Of course, simple votes without argumentation should be discouraged. MaxSem 17:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see what Radiant is saying and I'll try not to boldface my opinions here in the future.  Seems that we envision different routes toward a similar end. DurovaCharge! 20:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I frequently refactor comments on this page to make it seem less vote like. ViridaeTalk 22:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: May I still bold things like pointless, or weird, or What?? -Amarkov moo! 02:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh go ahead. Just don't make it look like a vote - ie Support or Oppose' ViridaeTalk 02:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. If you've looked at WP:RFC/N lately you'll see what I'm trying to avoid here. >Radiant< 10:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is not a vote 

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

message: (moved from WP:CN) Navou banter 12:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WT:RFC#Suggestion to give RFCs teeth]] - another potential use for this noticeboard 

message: This section needs more comments to close definitively Navou banter
:Why?We've been told -- repeatedly, at length, and with emphasis -- that this is not a vote, that what is measured is not the number of opinions but their basis in fact and policy.So why, now, should numbers be important? -- Ben TALK/HIST 02:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * Not looking at numbers.  Banning is not done by agreement of a handful of editors.  From WP:BAN - "Community bans must be supported by a strong consensus and should never be enacted based on agreement between a handful of admins or users." Would like to see more than four editors contribute discussion before closing as banned.  Otherwise, it may be closed as no action, or equivalent closure. Navou banter 02:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *So how many editors is "a handful"?Or, more to the point, how many is more than "a handful"?Is the same number required for every case? -- Ben TALK/HIST 02:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Judgment call. I think it is a judgment call.  Do you think it should be closed now, and if so, which way?  Navou banter 02:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I don't think I should be the one to make a "judgment call" on the banning policy (or any banning decision), when I also work on maintaining the list of banned users. I'd just like to know what the heck the policy is, now and then, especially if we're supposed to actually follow it. There's a determinable quorum for arbitration, even though it varies by how many arbiters are active at the moment. Wny not a determinable quorum for community bans? -- Ben TALK/HIST 03:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Community bans are not by vote, so a quorum would be meaningless. Any uninvolved intelligent good-faith person can enact a community ban; the only reason for discussion is to expose various evidence that may not be fully known and to expose reasons to the light of other minds. —Centrx→talk • 03:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *And that brings us back to "Do"... or rather, the same thing I said earlier, starting at "Why?" Thank you for completing the circle. -- Ben TALK/HIST 06:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments moved from a ban proposal regarding "what is enough discussion to close?" (paraphrased, not direct quote) 

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

message: I've reinstated all of the notices deleted by User:Tony Sidaway.  I understand that this is long page but there is a process here.  When discussions are finished (ie no more comments or withddrawal) they are closed with a template.  Or if there's simply been no comment in the discussion for a few days its bot archived.  Deleting is out of process.  I'm sure this was just a mistake and note is intended to expalin my reinstatements.  I asked user:Durova before I did  this and she explained that even a non-admin can revert out of process edits.  If notices need to be closed they just need to closed within process--Cailil  talk 12:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Out of process edits"? There is no such thing. This is not a rules lawyering game. —Centrx→talk • 13:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry Centrx if I'm wrong just revert, I'm not trying to wikilawyer or to be bureaucratic.  I discussed this with Durova here.  I wouldn't have done this if the notices had been closed and/or archived.  I've never seen any non-vandal content simply removed from a discussion page like this - Tony may just have forgot to paste it into the archives and if that's all then we should close and/or archive the discussions that have ended.--Cailil  talk 13:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I had a discussion with User:Cyde about this - they've cleared a few things up.  It is still my position that discussions should be closed - as they are on other noticeboards - before they are removed or archived.  I accept however when the discussion is just in the wrong place or is bad faith, or as Cyde put it, is about "bickering", that they should be removed, that makes perfect sense.  I am against the removal of open discussions however.  i also think some allowance for the uncertainty of this board, due to the MfD should made until that is resolved.  Perhaps a suspension or temp withdrawal of some?--Cailil  talk 18:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

text: At AN/I it seems that issues don't get closed, they simply disappear after 24 hours of inactivity, due to the action of the MiszaBot archiver. This acts as a form of triage, though it never guarantees full study of any issue. I believe there was some sentiment that this sanction noticeboard should work the same way. However that would not be my own preference.  At WP:COI/N there is obviously less traffic than some other boards, and those of us who often edit there have the luxury of seeing the issues wait around for thorough discussion. We even 'close' the issues, though some issues do get closed for inactivity. EdJohnston 21:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Tony's edits are a method of fixing this page should it be kept at the MfD I sent it to. Regardless of actions taken by the higher-ups following that discussion, it still stands that the topic it discussed (the Daniel Brandt thread) was well out of the scope that this noticeboard should have ever covered.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The scope that this noticeboard covers: "a forum for the discussion of community bans". The topic of the Daniel Brandt thread: a community ban. Specifically, to end Brandt's wrangling about whether he was properly community-banned or merely indefblocked by answering "Yes, both ways." That way no Wikipedian need fear threats of lawsuit for referring to Brandt as "banned"; no matter what definition was used, no-admin-will-unblock or community-consensus-in-discussion, Brandt would fall under it. Now you may argue about whether such a precaution was necessary when dealing with such a determined and litigious complainant, but at least there was no way it could be harmful. However, the deletion of that outcome was clearly not necessary, and could be harmful, either by leaving Brandt that chance to wrangle, or by leaving Wikipedians fearful that their backs aren't covered on that issue, with a resulting "chilling effect". On top of undercutting the people who'd tried to protect Wikipedia, came slamming them as Brandt allies, by misrepresenting the discussion as an attempt to unban Brandt. Was that either assuming good faith or acting in good faith? -- Ben TALK/HIST 04:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Community bans are discussed, but Daniel Brandt was a unique entity among those who were banned without the need for a drive-by consensus to say "Yeah, let's keep him banned."—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Except he was threatening to sue on the fact that there was no such drive-by consensus, so it was libelous to call him banned. -Amarkov moo! 18:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reinstating discussion 

message: referencing this discussion
: The above discussion is an excellent example of why this noticeboard is a net problem for Wikipedia.  It attracts too much frivolous fluff. --Tony Sidaway 00:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And ANI doesn't...? -Amarkov moo! 00:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That too.  --Tony Sidaway 00:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So...shall we MfD ANI? Or perhaps maybe we should just figure frivolous fluff will happen, and if nothing else, hopefully this was a learning experience for the person making the request? Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

text: *Folks, listen... the above discussion; not all users understand block and ban.  I must assume that in the requesting editors mind, the request may not be frivolous.  Requests will be misplaced, and mistakes made.  Please see the archives for examples of successfully closed discussions.  Thanks and best regards, Navou banter 01:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed the close reason... Quite evidently the community does not support a ban at this time, I don't think the full community even supports this board, just something to think about. Close reasons should perhaps state "this board does not support the ban". I also don't see much attempt to resolve the issues raised up at the MFD. (I've looked at the talk page of this place).—— Eagle101Need help? 03:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to clarify, this request is asking for a ban of an editor, which I feel is a failure to assume good faith. If you feel an editor has a problem in a certain area, open a request for comment. If we think the problem is that users don't understand the difference between a block and a ban, then that should be in the page header. —— Eagle101Need help? 03:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

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

message: Discussion should really be archived, as opposed to removed.  Regards, Navou 23:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd tend to say, hey, let's keep around the sillyassed ones that get closed as "What were you thinking?" very quickly. Hopefully, if someone comes along, about to post one in the same vein, and sees that, they'll get the point. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is something I agree with.  I have closed this discussion with some education, and I have placed the archive templates.  The bot will remove the discussion and archive it.  Additionally, there is a cliche about history repeating itself if we forget the past. Regards, Navou 23:13, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is a response to the "closing" of discussions. I undid them before, but it doesn't seem to have taken. This is a time for the people who think they are helping this page to take the community's current ambivalence toward it on board, and address concerns. This should not be a needless bureaucracy or a vote. Discussions in progress should not be closed at all, except under exceptional circumstances, like trolling or harassment (in which case they should be moved to the archive, not "closed" and left). Community discussions are not votes to be closed, certainly not by any one person adjudicating. Rather, there is a bot that archives threads automatically after they have gone 48 hours without discussion, and that convention should be used to ensure that truly dormant discussions, as inappropriate ones should be, are removed. On another note, this is the only place that regularly simply "closes" misplaced discussions, rather than moving them to where they should go and helping the confused user. This seems to be another symptom of overwrought bureaucracy. Dmcdevit·t 08:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So discussions here should be open untill archived by the bot if I understand you correctly.  I think the discussions should be closed with a summary of the consensus, it seems to make things easier.  What are your thoughts? Navou 13:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually the editors who've done everything possible to take down this board - from removing links to it from other noticeboards while MFD was ongoing to rewriting stable banning policy - might wish to take note that it still exists, and a significant percentage of Wikipedians see a useful purpose to it.  If you'd like to stay around and see how this really works, you might be pleasantly surprised. DurovaCharge! 18:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Trying to label me as a such-and-such to discredit my opinion while failing to address my point is not helpful and does not add to this discussion. Dmcdevit·t 07:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Basically, yes. Asking someone to "close" a discussion sounds less community-like to me. It sounds like you either have admins or some other clerk-ish group closing, which is problematic in that you then have a restriction of the final decision to fewer people, or you have anyone closing, which is problematic for the obvious reasons of inexperienced editors making mistakes. Closing in general is problematic because it brings into play the closer's opinion (can they IAR it if the community is wrong?) and because it encourages headcounting by the closer. We already have a good enough metric of consensus on banning: if the discussion leads to an unblock, the ban is overturned and should be at arbitration, not CSN, for resolution. Dmcdevit·t 07:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you list some examples where closures were incorrectly applied via the archives? Navou 10:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding the deletion of discussions 

message: Was there really a need for this, and if there was I do not like at all the idea of applying WP:SNOW to any conversation about a community ban, though in this case I don't even think the discussion was needed, as all socks are indeffed on sight if they are abusive socks. I've yet to see a decent conversation about a community ban on this page since the DRV. :S —— Eagle101Need help? 08:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In addition why the compelling need to make things "official"... this seems like a new "goal" for vandals and abusive sockers to attain. (WP:DENY) and all that. —— Eagle101Need help? 08:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

text: There was no reason to make anything official, hence why the discussion was closed.  WP:SNOW was not involved. Navou 13:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And now we have something along the lines of votes for banning in the next section. See this, heck nobody even gave full details, nor investigated the reporter (something that really ought to be done, and is done in all ARBCOM cases if the reporter is part of the dispute). —— Eagle101Need help? 18:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are free to investigate the reporter and report your findings. Please note the top of the csn page, where in it is explained about how votes are not done, and bans/sanctions are discussed. Navou 18:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, but see in the last 2, (first one closed in 45 minutes) (second one closed in 2 hours). There was not enough time to do so, (yes I was working on it). This stuff could have happened on WP:AN, and had a better chance of the relevant research and things getting done then here, plus without all the users "endorsing". It is possible to comment without having to "endorse" or "not endorse", see my comments. —— Eagle101Need help? 19:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

text: At the very least we should not be speedy closing bans, as the current snafu on WP:CN shows that as time goes on more people get time to do some research, and some valid objections are raised. Please do note I'm really not sure anymore if a ban should or should not be done in that case, but it should in any case require more in depth investigation, and as many people from the community as possible. Frankly crossposting to the various other forums would likely be a good idea to achieve the goal of getting as many members of the community involved as possible in this kind of discussion. More people only improves the chance that all evidence is found. At a minimum these requests need to be open for several days before they are closed, otherwise these discussions can take place just fine on AN or ANI. Regards. —— Eagle101Need help? 16:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard#Proposed_community_ban_on_User:Bobby_Boulders]] 

message: Note this discussion where community sanctions were not effected due to the case requested by arbcom. 
 ban request deferred to arbcom.
Here is another.  Very respectfully, Navou 01:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Following up on Navou's post, I was the editor who intervened at the latter thread and opened the request for Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram.  Discussions at this board normally close when an arbitration request opens. DurovaCharge! 02:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They shouldn't close just because someone files an RfAr, otherwise people will do that in order to close the discussion. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I can see that Narouv has been asked above not to close discussions too. It really is very bad form. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that discussion should close if an arbitration request is accepted, but not just filed. If the arbitrators decide to hear a case, their decision there will overrule anything here anyway. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with Seraphim, though I would add the community has the right to impose stiffer penalties than arbcom, though we may not lessen them, AFAIK. IronDuke 12:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not so sure if I agree with that, if arbcom puts an editor on probation, we really have no right to go over them (we elected them) and impose a ban, but at least the arbcom will see all the evidence in a somewhat ordered fashion, as opposed to the mish mash that we have on the board right now >.> Cheers! —— Eagle101Need help? 16:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Seraphimblade, actually if an editor thinks that they have a better chance of getting all the evidence reviewed by arbcom, they should not be denied the chance or discouraged from asking arbcom. —— Eagle101Need help? 16:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm going to point out that there is no rushing *need* to speedy "close" or take action on a banning quickly, several days to a week should be provided to allow discussion and evidence digging. —— Eagle101Need help? 19:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, though I still think a template to notify people if an ArbCom case is opened is a good idea and a much better idea than closing discussion down. Closing down discussions is always so contentious and I've always wondered why someone thinks they have the right to do that if it's not on their own talkpage. Finally, if speedy action is needed, shouldn't that go to WP:AN/I instead? AniMate 19:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suppose, as far as not formally "closing" things, that might be a decent idea, I think the closed discussions are being modeled off of the various request for deletion processes and may not be suited to a noticeboard like this. —— Eagle101Need help? 20:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The template probably is a good idea. Or even a bolded note at the top of the thread stating "This matter is being considered by the Arbitration Committee." Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

text: *I like Animate's idea. Its less testy.  It seems there are a lot of objections to the closures, and I am not averse to a change in consensus, if the consensus is that we do not close discussions anymore except for the obvious trolling (not implying that I have observed any) and what not.  Thoughts?  (I'm not a process wonk, I promise :P ) Navou 23:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Well, since you agreed with me, I think your thoughts are dead on. AniMate 06:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I'd just suggest that we stop "closing" stuff, and do this new idea. I don't see any reason why we should hesitate to implant this new idea. —— Eagle101Need help? 20:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If there are no objections, why don't we request a template with This matter is being considered by the Arbitration Committee per Seraphimblade's suggestion? Or someone here could make one. Regardless, I think its time to stop closing discussions, as this board is controversial enough. AniMate 02:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think templates are necessary really. Just say "I'm closing this debate because..." and give your reason.  I've closed the Palestine Remembered discussion because it was about to be considered by arbcom, and I've closed the one that Cool Cat raised because the guy he wanted banned (User:Ozgurgerilla) hasn't even ever been blocked.  I explained why and I surrounded the discussions by  and .  This should be used liberally so as to discourage inappropriate or indiscriminate use of this noticeboard, as well as to close discussions where the arbitration committee has intervened. --Tony Sidaway 03:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This discussion arose because Navou closed a discussion prematurely. Once the ArbCom has accepted a case, or where the discussion is clearly inappropriate, it's a different matter. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not think is was premature, acceptance by arbcom was imminent. Navou 11:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

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

text: Yep and I'm still waiting for a decent use of this board since the MFD. —— Eagle101Need help? 23:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Examples requested by Slim 

message: It is becoming increasingly difficult to browse banned users. I propose that a list should be provided linking to the individual cases in archives. -- Cat chi? 12:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *There should not be a problem with that. Navou banter 15:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia:List of banned users (WP:BANNED). Or are you talking about the CN archives specifically? --Akhilleus (talk) 17:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd like to have a short summary of every archived request on a single page. IN just one year there will be far too many archives to deal with. Wikipedia:List of banned users is not helpful since I want to ONLY browse users banned by the "Community sanction noticeboard". Banned users tend to return exploiting our PP. -- Cat chi? 13:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bear in mind that this board discusses partial sanctions such as topic bans in addition to full sitebans.  Is your interest mainly in discussions that produced a ban of some sort?  The archives include other discussions. DurovaCharge! 18:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is why it's important to leave a link on the userpage to the relivent discussion when someone is community banned. ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 22:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes like the "banned by arncom" template. Such pages should be protected too to prevent the removal of the template or at least the archived case should be linked in the block log where it is accessible (a 1 sec block to put it in the block log may be a sane trick). -- Cat chi? 13:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seaching for past cases 

message: (Moved from WP:CN) Navou 19:17, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No; it is however extremely confusing. The editor who insists on inserting/removing blank lines everywhere while also rewriting the indentation style of previous commenters to fit his personal preferences does so at the cost of making the mediawiki diff generator unable to synchronize the edited text, so it ends up looking like he removed a whole bunch of comments. It ought to be obvious that the Right version of an ongoing discussion is the one that causes the smallest diff with earlier versions, such that it is easy to verify what has been added since a certain point in time. An editor who does such undiffable restructuring for no apparent purpose has no good reason to complain if somebody else reverts him. –Henning Makholm 12:59, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

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

message: I wondering if this process needs to have the ability to also lift a ban and place conditions on the editors upon their return, a probation type period. Gnangarra 14:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some thoughts