Wikipedia talk:Banning policy/Archive 1

message: "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)
thread_title:  closest to a mistake 

message: I would welcome your thoughts on this offer:  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)
replies: text: That sounds right :-) - David Gerard 09:50, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Human proxies? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Clean slate 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Getting unbanned 

message: (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)
thread_title:  Standing orders 

message: I added the bit about putting a notice of the ban on blocked users' user pages.  This has long been our policy, see:
* User:Lir
* User:EntmootsOfTrolls
* User:Michael
* User:Wik
* User:Isis
The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:31, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  User pages 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Admin decision? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  One line summary 

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[WP:TP#Etiquette]] is in conflict with [[WP:BAN#Enforcement]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Indefinite block 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Is this correct? 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: Followups to Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28policy%29#what_constitutes_community_consensus_to_ban.3F please. -lethe talk [ +] 20:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  what constitutes community consensus to ban? 

message: i'm sure this is on here somewhere, i just can't find it. Joeyramoney 01:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:AN/I is a good place to do so. -lethe talk [ +] 02:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  how do i report a user? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Adding WP:OFFICE 

message: * "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 , 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)
thread_title:  Escalation process from block to ban? 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Jimbo bans 

message: 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)
thread_title:  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" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Partial community ban 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Decision to ban section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Why no TOC? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Evading the Ban ... Leyasu 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: No, I have no object to their being notified at all. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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.  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)

text: 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)

text: *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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Updated wording 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Do you think banned users should be allowed to freely post? why? - Denny 16:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: If only we could send them to Siberia... Grace Note 07:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: There is no cabal. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 13:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Reverting banned users, and users who engage banned users 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Do you think banned users should be allowed to freely post? why? - Denny 16:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: 1. Reverting banned users: may vs will

message: 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)
replies: text: If only we could send them to Siberia... Grace Note 07:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: There is no cabal. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 13:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title: 2. Engaging editors known to be banned - policy violation

message: 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)
replies: text: Would edits to other aspects on-wiki under their "name" be subject to the same, expected RVing? - Denny 20:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: WP:DENY. - Denny 17:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: Maybe, but even if he's the only one now, future cases are bound to appear. Everyking 11:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Is this about being an impartial encyclopedia or is this about settling a score, Thatcher? Killa Kitty 13:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: apparently Jimbo unblocked him. Thatcher131 15:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: (Replied at editor's user talk page). DurovaCharge! 16:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Allowing banned users to make comments on talk pages of articles about themselves 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: (Replied at editor's user talk page). DurovaCharge! 16:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbitrary section break 

message: 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 
:*Page-blanking vandalism by banned user's other sockpuppet 
:*Vandalism revert by bot 
:*Anonymous revert of banned user's content edit (a month later) 
:— CharlotteWebb 21:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert sub-policy needs an overhaul 

message: 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)
thread_title:  How do you request to ban a user? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: Could you further qualify your fiefdom comment, I don't get it.  Navou banter 12:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: (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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Restored version that had been here for 5 months 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Disruption? 

message: :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)
replies: text: 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)

text: *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)

text: *The community chose every single administrator. That, in itself, represents significant commmunity input. Mackensen (talk) 11:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: *What, you missed the primaries? -- Ben 12:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Are you trying to strengthen your argument or just annoy other users? Be honest now... — CharlotteWebb 12:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: *It's generally not helpful to think of editors as parties or factions. Just a thought. Radiant! 13:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Chapter 2

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: See also Seraphimblade's pragmatic questions below. -- Ben TALK/HIST 02:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Chapter 3

message: Are you seeing my points? Navou banter 16:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Chapter 4

message: (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)
thread_title: Chapter 6

message: (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)
thread_title: Chapter 8

message: 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.
*The community may impose either topic bans or general editing bans.  Supported by ArbCom per Wikipedia:Community_noticeboard/Archive2#Community_ban_request_on_User:GordonWatts as noted here.
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)
thread_title: Chapter 10

message: :: 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)
replies: text: But ye hae whackkit it, as a "lynch mob", nae less. -- Ben 00:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Could you express this in English? --Tony Sidaway 01:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (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)
thread_title: Chapter 12

message: : 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)
replies: text: Begging your pardon: that attempt succeeded five months ago without complaint. DurovaCharge! 09:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Yes it has been useful for setting subject-related bans in my experience.   --Tony Sidaway 13:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Chapter 14

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Well, this  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)
replies: text: 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)

text:  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)
replies: text: "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)
replies: text: Interestingly enough, Jossi inserted the text without discussing it with anyone or even dropping a note on the talk page . 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  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Query 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  I just coined it.  It applies (+content -content +content -content by different editors) :P Navou 17:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's a little misleading because it tends to equate independent actions by several different editors. --Tony Sidaway 17:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Edit warring 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: I have diffs for you. Forgive me, but I'm going to include context as well.  added a point of clarification to the banning policy on July 29, 2005 . 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 .  removed that particular line as part of a general cleanup of the policy, which had gotten overlong, in August of 2006: . 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: "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  users on , and only  administrators; that's about  users per admin, or  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)

text: You seem to be caught up on the sentence "If not one out of  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Okay, I've made a change to that effect. Please review. Dmcdevit·t 19:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Harmonious solution? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Not redundant; "block" ≠ "ban". -- Ben TALK/HIST 13:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, so what necessary function does it serve if it is not redundant? Dmcdevit·t 18:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: Go ahead, then. My point is to reduce the redundancy. Dmcdevit·t 22:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Latest on community ban section 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text:  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)

text: "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)
thread_title:  Community bans