Wikipedia talk:Community sanction noticeboard/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

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)