Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Community sanction/Archive 2

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Some distinctions

The criteria for a community ban is clear enough. Firstly, a user has been legitimately blocked, and no admin is willing to unblock. A post on either WP:ANI or here would decide that. But secondly, admins are supposed to "be sure that there is a consensus of community support". The talk pages of the relevant articles are insufficient to ensure such support, since they can easily be manipulated by cliques of users. So the two functions of this noticeboard are to canvas admins to see if any are willing to unblock the already blocked user, and to see if there is a general consensus that the user should not be unblocked. The result is that the block achieves the de facto status of a community ban. A community ban as such cannot be requested.

Clearly this noticeboard is not the place to request blocks. The user must have been blocked for legitimate reasons prior to the issue being raised here. The discussion here is in order to decide:

1. are there any admins willing to unblock the user, and if not,

2. does a significant portion of the community consider this to be unfair.

Any discussion outside of these two questions, including requests to block a user, or requests for community bans on unblocked users, are illegitimate.

This process seems clear enough. The task at hand is to set it out clearly in the introduction to the noticeboard. Banno 22:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Topical banns would appear far more problematic. So far as I am aware, there is no technical way to ban a user from editing specific pages. So the implementation of a topical ban requires the acquiescence of the banned user. Are there any instances of a topical ban being implemented in such a way that it did not result in a more general ban? I suspect that there is not really such a thing as a "topical ban" Banno 22:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

If someone is disruptive enough that we'd consider banning them, it's really pointless to demand a block discussion on ANI, then a ban discussion here. As for topic bans, Arbcom routinely implements them, and they do so far more often than this page ever does. It seems to work fine for them. -Amarkov moo! 22:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree. I'm not proposing a block discussion on ANI, then a ban discussion here. Rather, I'm pointing out that the legitimate role for this noticeboard is in showing that there is a consensus of community support for a ban. Banno
Have any topic bans been successfully implemented from this noticeboard? I suspect not, but may be wrong. At first glance it looks like a topic ban might be a special sort of community ban; but on consideration, it clearly is not. Certainly Arbcom can enforce a topic ban through the admins. A voluntary topic ban could result from a request for comment, but would be unlikely from a request for a community ban. If admins were to enforce a topic ban on a user as a result of discussion here, my guess is that the result would be a community ban. Banno 01:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
No that is a ratification of an indef block (I assume we are talking about indef blocks). A user who is indef'd and no other admin will reduce the block is considered banned. No need to ratify it. :) Please read the proposal above. I'm open to suggestions as well, but I'm attempting to address the problems of the MFD. The community will still be able to deal with blatant people, and less blatent people can be dealt with under the framework of resolving an existing dispute, with the whole thing proposed by an impartial 3rd party. (And yes I agree with Amarkov.) —— Eagle101Need help? 22:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. A community ban is nothing more than a ratified indefinte block. THe role of this noticeboard is ratification of an already existing block. Banno 01:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
What happens is that any admin can block an editor for violating a topic ban. That is, if an editor has been sufficiently disruptive at widgets that the arbitration committee or the community has imposed a topic ban, and the editor goes back and edits the article again, then the community no longer needs to wait and document a pattern of disruption before requesting a block. By the time a topic ban is justifiable the assumption of good faith has already been disproven by the user's track record. The reason for topic banning as an alternative to sitebanning is that sometimes an editor has one hot button but can edit productively in other areas. Sometimes those topic bans work out and sometimes they don't. I have a standing offer to award the Resilient Barnstar under certain circumstances and I've given one to an editor who turned things around after receiving an indefinite article ban. (To be fair, that was an arbcom implemented ban rather than a community ban, but the two are quite similar). DurovaCharge! 03:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Banno, this board does not need to "ratify" existing bans. See our policy on this. An indef block is considered a defacto ban, unless another admin is willing to unblock. —— Eagle101Need help? 04:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Durova, I agree with you 100%, I just don't think the way that disputes are coming here is productive, instead it tends to generate mistrust (especially if the accused is not banned, modifying how things are brought here fixes this problem). Please read the proposal above, topic bans are not by any means excluded. —— Eagle101Need help? 04:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Eagle, again quoting from the policy: 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. This is the only justification I can find within policy for the existence of this noticeboard. Can you find another? What else could this mean than that the community should ratify a community ban?

Please bear in mind that there are two issues here.

1. the process and criteria for a community ban

2. the process and criteria for a topical ban.

For clarity, we should keep the discussion of these two quite different problems separate. Banno 08:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Most "I have banned this person" stuff goes on at WP:ANI, as it is treated as an "incident". If you look at the board, it is not used for ratifications, and we really don't need to ratify a ban. If you look at WP:BAN it notes that if no other admin will unblock its effectively a ban. Admin announcements of indef blocks is not really all that common, many more single purpose accounts are blocked indefinably then you think. :) Basically if I were to block you indefinate, you can be sure I will get a toungelashing (and you would be unblocked), and if I do it enough, I will lose the block button. If you read the proposal, discussions on users that are already blocked go to WP:AN and WP:ANI, they already do, and no harm is done by them going there. What this board has been used for is for user A to request a ban of user B, normally when user A and B are in a conflict with each other. This is not the ideal solution. Better is to have a board as mentioned above for people in disputes to simply post a link to the dispute and let a 3rd party come up with a solution. If that involves a suggestion to ban one user then so be it. Other ideas are topic bans, 1RR ect, the 3rd party can of course suggest medcom, medcab, 3O, community enforceable mediation, or other ideas as well. Doing this should increase the neutrality of the proposals made, with a bit better explaination of what is going on. (3rd parties tend to describe a dispute better then someone that is in the dispute) (also see other reasons listed above) —— Eagle101Need help? 22:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Canvassing

Given the issues that were raised at the MfD, it would seem inappropriate to have users doing one-sided canvassing on issues that come up here. I notice that there's nothing explicitly mentioned in the process text though. Would it be worth putting in there? Mark Chovain 06:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I would wait a bit, but if any canvassing is to be done, all that is needed is a post to WP:AN or WP:ANI. Beyond that I'd discourage it. Please see the reform proposal above. —— Eagle101Need help? 06:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Would it help, Eagle, if we posted to AN whenever a new case was opened so that people could have a chance to comment? Likewise, before closing a case we could post a second notice to make sure that all the comments were in. As I understand your objection, the lack of visibility is a problem. Would this help? - Jehochman Talk 14:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Removing out of order discussions

Some of the folks with PalestineRemembered's case seem to want to carry on even though the discussion is archived. I removed their out of order comments [1] [2] Please move to an appropriate place (I'm not sure where) if you like. - Jehochman Talk 11:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

PR reverted my cleanup. I am not going to argue with him, but somebody else should look at this. Thanks. - Jehochman Talk 14:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Close discussion rather than removing them...

If a discussion is without merit, we should be closing them, rather than removing them. Reference this edit. If the discussion is started by a banned user, anyone may reinstate the discussion by taking responsibility for the content. I'll leave that up to individuals, however, some eduction may be seen by keeping these in archives. Navou banter 20:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

"Taking responsibility for content" in the policy is intended so that if a banned user happens to make a good edit, others are not prevented from keeping it. That is not intended for people to say "oh, well I'll take responsibility so I can close the request as meritless, but not delete it". -Amarkov moo! 20:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
I do understand what you are indicating here, however, I do think that discussion should be archived rather than removed, regardless of contributor. How else will folks know what type of proposal is acceptable and what is not? Additionally, archiving provides a record. What are your thoughts on that? Navou banter 20:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
My preference in this very delicate page would be to archive everything, rather than removing (even if the history will give it back). IMHO Navou's argument to create a record is a very important argument for archiving here. Arnoutf 22:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree, archiving over removal. Dean Wormer 19:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

An idea for extention of the CSN Mandate

regarding a process for removal of administrator tools from users, a discussion at wp:talk:Rfa on deadminship. This idea came up, any thoughts? please provide! --Rocksanddirt 17:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Check it out

I'm mad about user-conduct RfCs. Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Let's get rid of the user conduct RfCs because they're inefficient stupid wastes of time. Please tell me what you think. ScienceApologist 19:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Rstoration of active notice

The notice regarding User:Asadaleem12@hotmail.com had not yet been closed. I would request that this particular discussion be returned to the page until such time as it is resolved. John Carter 17:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The user hasn't edited in over a year? --B 18:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
This is the discussion taht was removed:

User:Asadaleem12@hotmail.com

User has a long history of hoaxmongering and sockpuppeteering which is listed on an unofficial evidence page and has recently started back up with various new sockpuppets starting with Kevin Hotfury (talk · contribs); the sockpuppets edit each others' user pages and have an interest in making up events coming from Pakistan. Initially, the hoaxes were all over the place, but mostly stick to wrestling pages now. They have a large library of official-looking pages in user space. JuJube 02:27, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks like one of his socks, Calvinpedia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), made a death threat. No discussion needed here, I think. Blueboy96 03:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
If you can make a conclusive case that these are the same editor then no community discussion is needed. Indef blocking for death threats is a slam dunk decision. DurovaCharge! 03:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure if a CheckUser was ever run, but circumstantial evidence is a bit overwhelming here. Kevin Hotfury makes edits about Asad Aleem, and says "he"'s not allowed to edit Wikipedia for making "hoax articles". He edits Wiki Florida 2007's user pages, who in turn edits a bevy of user pages, including Kevin Hotfury's. JuJube 03:18, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok ... I may be missing something here, but most of these socks haven't been editing in over a year. I think the user can already be considered to be banned based on the death threat. Is Kevin Hotfury (talk · contribs) unquestionably this person? If so, then I guess just block him? --B 20:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

It would seem so, given Hotfury has edited the user pages of the socks I mentioned, not to mention created a page explicitly about Asad Aleem, who has already been deemed a hoaxmonger of no real world importance. JuJube 22:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

"board closed"?

Further information: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard (second nomination)

I disagree with this. First of all, the deletion debate was clearly closed prematurely, after all of 12 hours. Many people will not even have seen it before it was closed. Secondly, listing the board for "deletion" was clearly disingenious. We may need clearer guidelines of the sanctioning process, but it is clear that we need such a process, and that it will involve input from the community as a whole, not just from the admin population. Which was the very rationale for splitting this off AN/I. If there are problems in how cases have been handled, address them here, not in a deletion debate. dab (𒁳) 15:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The above makes sense to me. While there did seem to be some sort of consensus that this wasn't the best way to handle such matters, it also seemed clear to me that there was no consensus on what to do. I think it would make sense to perhaps try to "tone down" the activity of this page until a new process is created, and then shut it down, but actively closing it without another means of addressing the matters this page regularly deals with in place, "ready for work", and known to those who would otherwise make comments here seems to me at least a bit premature. John Carter 15:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
noting that the debate was indeed ongoing for a week, I restore the "historical" tag, but I still object. AN/I is too crowded already. Discussing sanctions for long term problem editors are not "incidents". This could be a sub-board of AN (AN/S like AN/I), but then what is the point? Clearly, input is welcome from non-admins, so we can as well leave it where it is. dab (𒁳) 15:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

If the problem was that cases were judged too quickly in a kangaroo court fashion, develop guidelines to prevent that, such as a minimum number of votes or a minimum period of delay. Just saying "report to AN/I" solves nothing except turning this into a gamble: maybe you'll run into a trigger happy admin who takes unilateral action, or your report will be ignored because the admins don't feel like acting tough today. This is clearly a matter for community consensus, not janitors. dab (𒁳) 15:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

First, ANI is for everyone, not just admins. Secondly the community consensus is what decided to do this. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 15:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
There was apparent consensus that this wasn't the optimum approach to handling these issues, agreed. However, there did not at least to me appear to be anything like clear consensus on what the other preferred way of handling these matters would be. On that basis, to repeat what I said above, I think it would make sense to try to reduce the activity of this page where such seems reasonable, but not to actively close it until such time as there is consensus on what other process should be used in its stead. Of course, actively working to find a replacement means of addressing these problems should be encouraged. John Carter 15:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
As the closing admin's rationale suggested, there was a range of options that seemed to boil down to "close this board and move its functionality back to AN/I at least temporarily." Since there's been so much concern surrounding this board's activity, it's probably for the best to move ban discussions back to a more wider-read location until someone comes up with a better option. Tony Fox (arf!) 15:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't know that ANI is the complete solution. If you have a flat tire, just rotating your tires doesn't get you back on the road. The biggest issue in my mind is that it turns Wikipedia into the tyranny of the mob. We need to carefully guard against someone being banned simply for being unpopular or for holding a minority viewpoint. A community ban should be when no administrator is willing to unblock. If any admins in good faith are willing to unblock, then it needs to go to arbcom. --B 16:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I remember when it was at ANI, it seemed to work a lot better. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 16:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
The biggest advantage of ANI is that there is a lot more traffic there, so there are plenty of uninvolved editors to look at any issue that is raised. --B 16:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
And probably it's biggest disadvantage is the name, which can lead those of us who aren't admin's to think our comments may not belong. Also, although as per the above some think this process worked better at ANI, I'd like to see perhaps more than one specific example where the process clearly did do so. Also, I wonder how often things are regarded as working less-than-optimarlly there as well. One very basic advantage I can see to this page is the name. The name "Administrators noticeboard" gives the definite impression to some that it is basically a page solely for admins. "Community ... noticebord" does not give that impression, and gives those of us who are, like me, not admins a better impression that any comments we might make would be at least welcome to be raised here. Also, I note that, despite the comments above, banning seems to have been far from the only outcome of activities here, so it might be misleading to mention that as the only outcome of this page, as seems to have been done above. At the very least, I think keeping this page as a place where "the rest of us" can uniformly feel justified in raising our concerns and have them at least examined, and, yes, maybe dismissed as unactionable by better informed parties, is an idea worth merit. John Carter 16:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Why not rename ANI to "Incident noticeboard" or something? --B 16:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
That AN and ANI are only for admins is a common and reasonable misunderstanding. Maybe we should put a note at the top of them stating that everyone may participate. Picaroon (t) 16:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
AN already has "Although its target audience is administrators, any user is welcome to leave a message or join the discussion here" and ANI already has "Any user of Wikipedia may post here." But a renaming could still be useful, since it's possible to overlook those notices (ahem...). Raymond Arritt 16:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
And, for what it's worth, many of us are used to seeing comments like "You may approach the queen" and "You are welcome to raise any concerns you may have with the Personnel office", and then find out that the words "may" and "welcome" evidently have meanings we hadn't encountered before. Maybe "Noticeboard for proposed admin action" might (notice I didn't say "may") work better? John Carter 16:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
"Noticeboard for proposed admin action": I like it. ScienceApologist 17:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
How about "WikiDrama Central"? Sadly, that's often about the level at which said venue operates. Orderinchaos 12:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
It'd be far easier to just bold the bit about "any user may post here," or make it larger so it stands out somehow. Like what was done with the red colour for the line about not being the complaints department. (mind you, that hasn't helped a lot, but still.) Tony Fox (arf!) 17:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Has it been a problem over the last 3 years? ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 17:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
My guess is that several requests may have gone unreported longer than they might have otherwise because of the name, possibly thereby making the problems worse than they might otherwise have been. John Carter 17:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Editprotected, and note

{{editprotected}} Add {{proposed}} to the page. There's a discussion into reviving it on WP:VPP#RFC/U - time to get rid of it?. Will (talk) 10:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

It appears pointless to mark a protected page as {{proposed}}. If there is consensus for reviving this, I recommend going to WP:RPP or another appropriate forum first. Sandstein (talk) 21:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Community_sanction/Archive_2"