Wikipedia talk:Community sanction

message: Per discussion elsewhere, I think this power already exists; this is simply documenting what the administrators' corps could do--and should do in many instances.  
This, and WP:TE, could make the arbcom's life much easier.  --EngineerScotty 23:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  this is simply documenting 

message: The current wording of the policy matches the way that I implemented the recent community probation, an one month topic article ban. I suggest we keep this wording until we do a few more and then change it to include any new ideas. FloNight 04:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Current wording matches recent community probation

message: I've opened an RfC for this in order to get more input.  The proposal looks good to me right now. Durova 05:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC 

message: One idea discussed on Wikipedia talk:Community probation is to expand this to include the existent, but not-well-documented practice, of community bans.  --EngineerScotty 21:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Community sanctions 

message: The community is now doing community sanctions so a written policy would be helpful. I changed the name per suggestions on the log page. Comments and suggestions welcome.
One area to be addressed is using user conduct RFCs as a starting point for community sanctions. I do not think it should be mandatory but could be a way to make RFC actionable. Short of starting a RFArb little actionable happened in the past even if there was a need. There is a natural link between the two, I think. One RFC is being used that way now and I anticipate more in the future. . FloNight 16:31, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Changed the name and made policy

message: I added a list of types of sanctions, thinking that not all admins will be familiar with typical Arbcom remedies.  Should be pretty noncontroversial.  Personal attack parole is a bit redundant with the kind of thing that happens on the noticeboards already but there might be some times when we would want to specify it. Thatcher131 19:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Listing of sanction types 

message: I'm going to remove the merge tag for the time being.  Community sanction is something we have already agreed to do and have started doing.  RFSL is a proposed new procedure in between RFC and RFAR.  If RFSL is adopted, it will certainly interact with Community sanction in some way, but it is much too early to consider merging a description of what we already do with an entirely new proposed process. Thatcher131 04:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No thanks on the merge 

message: There is a problem with the name "Community sanction". If the sanction comes from the Wikipedia community then there should be no special role for administrators in the process above the role played by other members of the community. If this proposed policy is meant to create a new power just for administrators, then call it "Sanction by administrators". — Preceding unsigned comment added by JWSchmidt (talk • contribs) 
:Agree, remedies of this nature should be applied by the consensus of the community. Addhoc 22:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  community  or administrators? 

message: Given the existence of Wikipedia:Community noticeboard where community sanctions of various sorts are imposed, it seems that it is useful to have a place to log community sanctions that may have significant time to run, a place that is NOT archived by a bot keeping only recent comments. I'm not sure exactly what rationalisation is needed to aling this, the ../log subpage and the Community noticeboard, but a log IS needed in my view. Comments? ++Lar: t/c 21:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent idea.  I have independently concluded the same, and have updated the page to reflect current practices.  However, on year later, WP:CSN has been deleted, and we hold discussions at WP:AN or WP:ANI instead. Jehochman  Talk 21:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Not deleted. Marked historical. --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time to revive this... 

message: The appeal section says people who have been banned can appeal to Administrators or Arbitrators.  Should a hint be given of how someone who can't edit can perform such an appeal?  -- SEWilco (talk) 01:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Appeal has a little technical issue 

message: This page developed concurrently with Wikipedia:Disruptive editing and was abandoned as historical when the other got promoted to guideline.  In order to avoid bureaucracy, recommend relocating current discussion there.  Suggest redirect because the concepts of community sanctions and disruptive editing really go hand in hand. DurovaCharge! 02:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hang on. There are two discussions ongoing about this page, at WP:AN#Wikipedia:Community sanction and WT:RFAR#Suggestion regarding the appeal of community sanctions.  The purpose here is not to duplicate WP:DE, but to document the process for establishing a community sanction.  WP:BAN does not cover lesser sanctions and there is no other documentation I can find. Please comment at those threads as you like.  Jehochman  Talk 02:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The logical solution to this is not a proliferation of policy/guideline pages.  A year ago I updated WP:BAN to include topic banning per actual precedent and an ArbCom precedent.  That quickly got shouted down in a chorus of a community ban is a block that no admin is willing to unblock and nuances such as lesser types of sanctions were ignored in the discussion.  The current discussions here and elsewhere aren't news to me; there just isn't much worth saying.  A year and a half ago this page was abandoned because there was no specific reason why community sanctions needed a separate proposal from disruptive editing: we don't place sanctions on harmonious editors.  An update in Wikipedia namespace to reflect actual practice is long overdue, but this peculiar choice you have selected to suddenly try to revive a long-dormant page that never had serious support is likely to meet opposition.  The same people who edited here very briefly were the same people who got WP:DE off the ground. DurovaCharge! 04:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I was going to create a page with this name, the logical name, and found this sitting here so it seemed to make sense to recycle it. I think merging the two pages will make it harder for people to understand the concept.  Using WP:BAN for this content will be even harder for folks to grasp (as you have discovered).  We should be most concerned with what the pages say, and less concerned with how they are structured.  The structure should be chosen for convenience.  Whatever is most easily understood and accepted will be best. Jehochman  Talk 11:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested redirect 

message: This process documentation is the best we have available, though it leaves much room for improvement.  I recommend removing the colorful tags from the top of the project page, as this may encourage more editors to participate in shaping a community sanctions process that will be less controversial and gain wider acceptance. Jehochman  Talk 19:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: A starting point

message: Based on Jehochman's initiative, and the current Whig RFAR question.
Please see: Wikipedia:Requests for remedies. Tweak it at will. Yes, zomg! PROCESS! Evil! So what? The project is getting so huge that we need some. I suggest any complaints of ZOMG NO PROCESS! be pushed aside. If a process works for the community, it's not a bad thing. Lawrence § t/e 22:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Requests for remedies]]