Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The sheer number of participants in this debate, as well as the many opposite arguments that have been articulated in either sense (some of which are mutually exclusive), makes it very difficult to weigh the balance towards a single, unequivocal result. Furthermore, opinions are virtually split evenly between both positions, reinforcing the division that this discussion creates in the opinions of editors. Therefore, it is impossible to reach a result other than no consensus achieved. However, this instance has also revealed itself fruitful, as several comments have raised important points that should not be overlooked, and which have been acknowledged even by many of those who support keeping this Noticeboard.

It is clear that the intentions of those who have invested great effort in creating and maintaining this Noticeboard are good, and they should be praised for this. However, in the opinion of big part of the community, it is slowly but steadily losing its focus and turning itself more into (to put it bluntly) some sort of execution platoon rather than a centralized forum for discussion of possible actions by the community. Revealing testimonies of this tendency are:

• its current !vote form to support on endorse bans;
• the request of sanctions by default, not only by those who bring a case, but as a demand by those commenting in order to even start discussing it;
• even its present name has been questioned since it allegedly presents an immediate image of a disciplinary court;
• a significant part of the requests currently being filed appear to be bad faith efforts by users in editing disputes.

It has been suggested, and I agree, that this Noticeboard should and needs to be closely monitored to correct these flaws and remove its newborn subtype of bureaucracy before it becomes too established. In its present form, the theory intended by those who created it and by others who've worked hard to make it a viable venue for discussion is getting remarkably different from its every day practice. A couple of things to keep in mind when observing its future development could be summed up as:

• it should not work as a "Votes for Banning", like it has been repeatedly described below and commented above;
• it should not create a new and futile kind of self-perpetuating bureaucracy, i.e. ratifying old community bans;
• a change of name that emphasizes its nature as a venue for discussion instead of a search-for-sanctions' noticeboard should also be considered.

As conclusion to this rationale, I also consider relevant the possible advantages that this Noticeboard potentially possesses, and which have been aptly put by several users below; namely, being a separate forum to discuss a very delicate matter that normally takes a longer time frame than the Administrators' Noticeboards permit. Whether said benefits are augmented with a corrected functionality remains to be seen and observed, and will ultimately decide its fate in the future. - Phaedriel - 12:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard

Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This page was created with the intent that it was to become a place for the community to come together and discuss matters similar to those that are normally discussed on the administrative and incident noticeboards. It was felt that because "administrators'" was used in the title of the other two pages, it excluded the rest of the community, which they truly did not.

This board was originally known as the "Community noticeboard". It has however become a board to get a vote on officially banning users. I had originally planned to send this board up for the miscellany for deletion when the board decided to discuss the merits of the original community ban on Daniel Brandt including some users who wished to lift the ban on the user (irrelevant of later actions by Jimbo concerning Brandt). This board is no longer used to discuss pressing issues for the community but rather a brand new version of Wikipedia:Quickpolls.

Such examples of abuse of the board include the discussion of Eagle 101's unblocking of Gen. von Klinkerhoffen and the extreme misunderstanding of what a community ban is, a request for more people to comment on a ban (not unlike an AfD discussion), as well as the previously stated Daniel Brandt discussion and discussing whether or not the original community bans are still in effect.

The decisions made on the community sanction noticeboard have also spread to other pages concerning the community ban, but those pages will have to come up at a later date. Deletion is my first choice here. Sending it the way of Esperanza is my second choice. We just need some sort of decision to eliminate this mess of bureaucracy before it becomes like WP:AfD or what has become WP:RFCN.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment and history: FWIW, I wrote the original definition of a community ban: "not one out of 500 admins are willing to undo." This presumes admins selected for at least some sanity and willingness to discuss, which I do think we still have. Note that when I wrote this phrase, I was being descriptive: this already happened at this time. Some people were so obviously unsuited to Wikipedia (POV-pushing, obsession, batshit insanity or whatever) that a ban was by far the kindest thing for them and us and no admin considered it not the sensible thing in the circumstances. As we suffer the dizzying heights of top 10 popularity, we get ever more of these. The arbitration committee later ratified the practice (certainly when I was on it) - when obvious hopeless cases were brought before it, we'd often say "This is an obvious one to just block" - with noting it on the admin noticeboard being presumed the obvious sensible thing to do. (I've put my actual opinion waaay below.) - David Gerard 19:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

A community ban is one that "not one out of 1,200+ admins are willing to undo", not something that was "ratified" on a noticeboard. Check out this current request. Community bans are simple, something that nobody is willing to undo, not something that is ratified by a board. Also please note the board's original purpose was to be a place to post things visable to everyone, not a place to discuss users. I'm seeing cases where the board is being used for nothing but to attack other editors, without going through the dispute resolution process, or even attempting to open an request for comment on a user. See WP:CN#Request_for_blocking_of_user:Pdelongchamp_on_vlogging_article, that user has never had a Request for comment, or gone through the dispute resolution process, but rather just ran to get a ban. Misuse of this board (whose intent was never to be for bans to start with) are rampent, just check the archives here which shows 38 sections with a bolded endorse, support, or oppose. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 08:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - Maybe we should re-focuss what a community ban actually is then. There is no way to truely know if a user is community banned without ratifying it - this is the ideal place for it. Ryan Postlethwaite 08:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Sure we do, if not one out of 1200 admins are willing to undo it, then the user is banned. If the user has an indef block and appeals it, and no admin is willing to undo the block (because they have been so troublesome) then its a ban. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 08:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't agree, for long term users, a community ban should be ratified, so that it is clear the user is not welcome here, and any socks which they may create. It is also the only place that page bans can be given out without wasting ArbComs time. Ryan Postlethwaite 08:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
      • If you take it through the dispute resolution proccess then it will end up at arbcom, who will then do the ban after over 3 weeks of discussion, not just the quick "yea" or "na" stuff I'm seeing here. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 08:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Some things don't need the 3 weeks of discussion that ArbCom do - it just wastes time when the community can give the same action anyway. Ryan Postlethwaite 08:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
          • Really? Please show me a decent use of this board, of a user that was not already indef blocked by the time they showed up here for "ratification". Keep in mind a community ban is an indef block by an admin which no other admin will undo. I mean someone like User:Willy on wheels is dead obvious, but other cases where there is edit-disputes, and multiple users who did something wrong, its time to go to arbcom. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 08:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
            • Wikipedia:Community_sanction_noticeboard#Lovelight? Blocked for 2 weeks, turned into a quick discussion and his block was extended to a full community ban, no RfC needed, or ArbCom due to the fact that the community had already had enough and things were unlikely to change. Ryan Postlethwaite 08:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
              • Mmm had I noticed that I would have done a RFC, and had gone from there rather then the witchhunt and "supports" to ban a user from wikipedia. If the user asked for a request for comment, and was willing to stop his edits, then he should have been given the chance. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 09:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
          • If these bans do not need extensive weeks-long discussions, then why does there need to be a separate noticeboard for it, which has turned into a procedural and vindictive nightmare? If most of these users are already banned, there doesn't need to be any waste of time like this. If anyone wants to discuss it, the administrative noticeboards are both open and available for it, which have never had the problem of masquerading as some ratifying legislature. —Centrx→talk • 14:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Such strongly misinformed ideas like "There is no way to truely know if a user is community banned without ratifying it" which are promoted by this noticeboard a strong argument in favor of its disbandment. Dmcdevit·t 09:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, as useful (and while that's not a valid argument on AfD, it is on MfD!), even if some issues have needed ironing out. (When did SOFIXIT become SODELETEIT, anyway?) CN does not change the definition of old-style community bans, and discussion on the matter has been pretty clear that those need no ratification by any means other than no admin being willing to unblock. If its only purpose were to discuss community bans about which there might be some question, even that would be a useful purpose. However, the most useful purpose it has served is to provide a mechanism by which the community can propose and ratify sanctions short of a complete ban. This cannot be duplicated by old-style community bans, there is not a button an admin can hit to say "Block EditorX from editing foo-related articles," and see if any other admin undoes it. This aside, banning an editor is a serious enough step that something should be reserved for purpose of such discussions. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment As an addendum to the last, I've asked more than once to be provided an example by those who object to CN, of when a decision made on CN was wrong or improper. Thus far, no such example has been forthcoming, so I leave the question open here. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Request community ban on {{vandal|JB196}}; where the board was planned to solely be used to have a link on WP:LOBU—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I would also like to point out Consideration of block or ban for User:Just_H, where it was very obvious that no one would be unblocking him.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm asking for a decision you disagree with, not a listing you disagree with. Yes, sometimes things get listed that really don't need to be. If we're going to MfD for that, we'd better throw AN and ANI on this, a lot of useless threads get opened there! In this case, the banned user was obviously correctly banned, they stayed banned, no harm done. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
      • My issue with the board is that while good things evolve from it, the method by which these decisions are made is done in an entirely improper way. Most users listed there are already indefinitely blocked, and nearly all have never been unblocked under any circumstances.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Or, in other words, it does some good and no harm? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
          • You are setting up a false dichotomy. I could just as equally ask you to provide a bad decision made on another noticeboard that necessitates this one. However, your question doesn't address a major problem: this process is emphatically not how bans should be done. Bureaucracy is clunky, promotes technicalities over result, and serves no purpose in itself. So in defense of bureaucracy, the proper question is never "what harm does it do?" but "what essential purpose does it serve?" This one does do harm by attempting to constrain the ways in which a ban may be enacted. Dmcdevit·t 09:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
            • There is no "false dichotomy" in asking "What good does it do?", nor in asking "Has it actually done harm or led to a wrong conclusion, or is it just theoretical that it could?" Even Ryulong states that it has been useful. Apparently many other editors agree-they use it! Sometimes, process can have the harms you cite. On the other hand, having a degree of process is important. As you and I have discussed at length, I think most would pretty well agree that the old definition of a community ban (blocked indef and no one has any desire to unblock) still holds. On the other hand, it is useful to have some clarity for people. There's nothing wrong with having structure to making important decisions, and whether or not to ban an editor is a pretty big decision. (You're participating in a process right now, where we're deciding whether to delete that page. If we didn't have this process, the alternative would probably be endless wheel wars. Processes are not inherently bad.) I also find the continuous comparisons to the "quickpoll" process to be a complete straw man, that was obviously a bad idea. There's no "number counting" at CN, and it's pretty clearly stated that it is not a vote. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
              • People use it because it is listed there as the proper place to request a ban. That does not mean that they have made any sort of decision as to the special value of a separate noticeboard and this particular special noticeboard. In addition, if you are going to respond to these requests to ban, the only place to do so is where the issue was brought up, unless you move the whole discussion to the administrators noticeboard. —Centrx→talk • 14:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I must say that I find a bit of this unconvincing, and would prefer deletion at this point. First, I believe that the community sanction noticeboard does change the the definition of community bans, by turning them into a bureaucratic process. This is dangerous. We don't need yet another insular, self-serving community of people reporting on others and "enforcing". See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Personal attack intervention noticeboard. This is also instruction creep that gives rise to the misconception that all bans must be discussed and ratified on CSN (even arbcom bans a year old) and tht is being spread to other places where such threads are directed to CSN as inappropriate at WP:AN. Furthermore, this promotes the misconception that discussion is necessary for any and all bans, since bans are now some "formal" process which require "ratification." Discussions are a matter of judgment: necessary when there is a valid question, but a waste of time when an issue is obvious to all, and not contested. Excessive rules and bureaucracy with no functional benefit are the treats for trolls and ruleslawyers, who will seek to avoid bans because procedures like this were not followed. There is no reason that proposals for bans cannot be brought up at other, better fora, with more traffic and less procedural hoops. This is a wiki; that page is the same as all the rest except for what you write at the top of the page. The discussions you are talking about, like "provid[ing] a mechanism by which the community can propose and ratify sanctions short of a complete ban" can take place just as easily on WP:AN or elsewhere. Deleting the CSN is not suggesting in any way that discussions about bans shouldn't take place, but that the way they do there is unhelpful, usually. CSN doesn't give anyone a "Block EditorX from editing foo-related articles" button either, so it's not any more necessary for such decisions. The concern about voting is a very valid one. Despite the page's header, discussions there have often devolved into simple votes, where rationale is unimportant, and worse, admins have even been "closing" such discussions as if it were a vote to be read and decided, not a discussion with an organic conclusion. We need to avoid the quickpollization of community bans at all costs, and based on its history, I think the community sanction noticeboard is counterproductive in that regard, and serves no necessary enough role that isn't already covered elsewhere that it is worth saving. Dmcdevit·t 09:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

If you don't support quickpolls at all, then how do you suggest we interpret non-poll discussions. Polls are only used to make concensus measurable. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Reasons? Dmcdevit·t 09:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Consensus between reasonable people is typically pretty obvious without polls. In addition, no matter how many bogus polls you make, the user can still be unbanned by any administrator if the ban is unreasonable, which is the exact same situation as without polls. —Centrx→talk • 14:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

"Consensus between reasonable people is typically pretty obvious without polls." But generally it does take discussion, unless Wikipedia features Internet-compatible telepathic scanners. WP:CSN is for such discussions, not voting, as it says in its very first sentence. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 10:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

No, most things on Wikipedia are done without discussion. Discussion is done if someone is unsure about an action, or if a legitimate person does dispute or is going to dispute it. —Centrx→talk • 16:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• This page has never produced any helpful/productive/useful/constructive/etc. discussion on anything. Most posts are either a waste of time or are just being used as an unofficial step in dispute resolution. John Reaves (talk) 08:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. A lot of pages get abused, but that's not necessarily a reason to drop them. In this case it takes a lot of the load of very busy pages like WP:ANI and Arbcom. Making those a little less busy is something I consider a good thing. As for a "community ban". I think that is a ban the community supports as the name suggests. This means most admins will support it to, but that shouldn't be the primary reason, or it would be called an "admin-supported ban". -Mgm|^(talk) 09:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Admins act on behalf of the users. The amount of load taken off is very little, and the instruction creep is very high. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 09:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • If you are going to set up some fallacious dichotomy between conducting things teh way they are done at CSN, and having "admin-supported ban," then I think you've missed a lot of history. CSn didn't invent community bans, thank you very much; we had them before and and will have them after it. The community is also not the Form of the community, it just calls itself that, and in fact is much less trafficked by the "community" than better noticeboards. Dmcdevit·t 09:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Fnord. This is a protest against excess process wonkery – Gurch 09:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Close and mark as historical, largely per Dmcdevit. This noticeboard is not proving a useful sounding board and is not solving disputes; it is acting as a meeting ground for groups of editors to see how many people they can get to join their banning campaign. It is unfriendly and unhelpful. Sam Blacketer 10:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as above, largely per Dmcdevit. This board is heading the same way as WP:PAIN. It is being used as a first stop in a dispute, an attempt to get another user banned. Despite a very strong header and many refactorings, it is also being treated as vote by far too many people. It is overly beuracratic. Viridae^Talk 11:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

D'ye mean "beerocratic"? *hic* -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 12:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as nominator and per excellent reasoning by Dmcdevit, who has thankfully spared me the need to present my own case. Polls are not a valid method of dispute resolution. Mackensen (talk) 11:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Nuke it. per nom and Dmcdevit. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 11:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• keep - there is a very real issue that, if we continue to say that "no admin is willing to unblock" is a "community ban", admins who otherwise would have been willing to will be afraid to unblock someone who has been called "community banned" for fear of defying the "community ban" - the situation where no admin has unblocked a user is, at best, a de facto community ban, not a real one. --Random832 12:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Err, really? I just recently unblocked an editor that was community banned. Heck it was even "ratified" by this board. You can see the questioning of my ablitly to do so here. Please do note that I was also questioned on ANI, and one of the editors not liking the result of ANI, took it to this board. Nothing but process wonkery. If it blows up on the unblocking admin then it blows up, my exeriance with unblocking gen. von klinkerhoffen has been good, as he has gone to doing decent edits. :) —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 12:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't think anyone is "afraid" of the community sanction noticeboard, though if your reason for keeping it is to cause fear that's not a good reason. —Centrx→talk • 14:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Question. Does anyone object if this MfD is announced at WP:VPP and WT:COI/N? EdJohnston 12:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep: Sometimes what the "community consensus" will be isn't clear unless you actually ask the community. Why not do so in a forum clearly marked for that purpose, rather than scattered around other noticeboards and/or talk pages, email-lists or IRC channels? This way there's an archive and the opportunity of watchlisting this specific topic -- so if it's done wrong (voting, quickpolling, "lynch-mobbing", whatever) all the concerned wikicitizens can intervene. How could you watchlist and monitor such discussions if they were scattered all over (and off) Wikipedia? Notice also that problem-solving can benefit from community discussion; sometimes topic or article bans have been imposed instead of general editing bans, allowing an editor to stay productive instead of being lost altogether. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 12:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC) (Added "Strong" after seeing Durova's and others' eloquent arguments for community voice.)
  • All of these purposes are served by the Administrators noticeboard, which you can rename to the Administrative noticeboard if you want, and which worked just fine for several years to propose an idea of whether someone should be banned. —Centrx→talk • 14:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
    • By that argument, we should fold all the other noticeboards back into WP:AN as well... and make its bytecount and clutter that much bigger and harder to deal with. But progress has been in the opposite direction: as the population grows, divide out the topics among specialized noticeboards. This one happens to be for community sanctions. When people bring such issues to WP:AN, now they can get directed over to WP:CSN, just as conflict-of-interest issues can get sent to WP:COI/N, BLP issues can get sent to WP:BLP/N, etc. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 15:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
      • 1) Sub-noticeboards like WP:PAIN and WP:RFC were collapsed back into the main noticeboards because of their problems. 2) WP:COI/N and WP:BLP/N do not per se require administrator attention, and if you would look at those pages you would see that almost no one responds to these requests such that if anyone actually wanted administrator attention they would have to bring to the administrator's noticeboard. —Centrx→talk • 17:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
        • On what Wikipedia in which universe was WP:RFC "collapsed back into the main noticeboards"? Here it still exists, with a number of subpages. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 05:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
          • Sorry, WP:RFI not WP:RFC. —Centrx→talk • 16:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Nuke the sucker; I've always questioned its existence, but hadn't really paid much attention to it in the last month or so. Ryulong's examples are interesting, and Dmcdevit's point is sound. Ral315 » 13:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. This is far from ideal, I admit. But discussion between five people on ANI was not better, nor was the old "nobody will unblock" standard. I will support deletion if and only if someone actually comes up with a better process for community banning first. -Amarkov moo! 13:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • This noticeboard does not replace "nobody will unblock", which is still true, and ban discussions on ANI where necessary have many discussants. —Centrx→talk • 14:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - I would never block someone based on the discussions present on the Community sanction noticeboard, I resent a few editors behaving quite uncivilly and trying to force administrators into blocking users. The people requesting the sanctions aren't going to be liable for any fallout from a Community ban, it's going to be administrators, and unless we have an overwhelming majority of administrators here who are happy to (in my view, recklessly) block a user per a request here, then it's totally useless. Now, why wouldn't I carry out a block/ban request from this board - Simple - The board doesn't disregard conflict of interest, it doesn't find all the evidence, it can and frequently is very one sided and it's often used to carry out vendettas against certain editors. There's enough little cliques on Wikipedia that would like to cause trouble and would like to be able to ban certain users, this board tries to give them ability to do so. For that reason, it must be deleted and any future board that works in a similar manner should be blocked. If we need an enhanced capability to ban users, an extra few arbitrators would be my preferred solution and a streamlined arbitration process for users behaving unsuitably. If a user is to be banned, they are at least entitled to a fair and impartial investigation into their behaviour. -- Nick ^t 13:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. God forbid the community have a say in the processes regarding removing people's editing privs. How dare we infringe on the power of administrators? I really hate to be sarcastic in an important discussion, but I'm seeing absolutely no way to take this nomination seriously. If anything, this is not the forum to discuss this - it's akin to nominating DRV for MfD. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • If CSN were not around, admins would not have any more power than previously...the discussions would just take place at AN or ANI, with an invite for everyone. --Iamunknown 13:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Interesting that you believe that. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
      • And are you going to actually discuss and try to defend your statements? MfD ain't a vote --Iamunknown 17:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
        • And what statement, at this point, do I need to defend? --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
          • Nvm, this is pointless. --Iamunknown 19:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • The "community" has no more or less say because of this noticeboard. The problem is the bizarre parliamentary environment created by this noticeboard, a noticeboard which is unnecessary. Also, there would be nothing wrong with nominating DRV for MfD. —Centrx→talk • 15:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
    • O RLY? --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
      • What about it? There was no need to speedy close it, and it was speedy closed by one of its major participants. Regardless, there was much less concern about it in the discussion than here. —Centrx→talk • 17:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• keep - Largely as per Random832, but with some reservations Whether you like it or not, Wikipedia is getting bigger, and the primary justification for bureaucracy is that it runs large things better than anarchy. When you have over a thousand administrators, obvious cliques that DO exist, though they may not be as influential and conspiratorial as the kookier among us would have you believe, and the current moderately subjective policy net, if you don't have a mechanism for enacting a "ban," you get into that situation where "blocks" and "bans" become synonymous because administrators won't overturn blocks for fear of stepping on the wrong toes. Adding process in this case serves to make the decision to block or unblock a lot more secure by giving you a decision to point to and not requiring the piles of exposition and investigation implicit in the alternative. Keep in mind that these discussions were already going on when the board was created - they were just taking place on the Administrators' boards (though I'm not the most prolific contributor by a long stretch, I do observe a lot). I'd be just as happy if some alternative community sanction process were defined, but given the choice between the Community board and nothing, I'd rather have something. Cool moe dee 345 14:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • The discussions can still happen on the administrators noticeboard, as they always have, which still serve as a place to point to in order to support an unblock. —Centrx→talk • 15:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Close page or Delete per nom and my argument at the last MfD. The name is better, but that's about the only thing that's improved. IronGargoyle 14:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. 'The consensus' may be up in the air somewhere, but occasionally people have the urge to make it tangible. The CSN helps make Wikipedia less Kafkaesque, in the sense that people want to know where to turn or how decisions get made. Do you need to be an insider-insider before you have any idea what is going on? The CSN receives some amateurish attempts to ban somebody based on inadequate evidence, but if experienced editors can reasonably respond and point out the inadequacy, those who come there will learn something. EdJohnston 14:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • CSN did not invent discussion or consensus. The claim that there was nowhere to turn before the CSN is ridiculoous. Again, this is a red herring: no one is proposing that discussion be banned, but that it take place somewhere else. Dmcdevit·t 18:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep. This board is the venue for community ratification of voluntary restrictions from community enforceable mediation. To add to the note about this being the only location for establishing non-siteban community sanctions such as article banning, this is the only venue where such discussions get archived in a coherent manner for later reference. The current firestorm began when a few sysops seriously misunderstood the discussion on Daniel Brandt: it was initiated as a preventative measure to protect certain Wikipedians from a potential lawsuit based upon how a court of law might misunderstand this site's practices. There was never a serious possibility that he would be unbanned or that Wikipedians considered his previous ban invalid. Likewise, another citation of a thread I started has been badly misconstrued. Neither I nor anyone else suggested that older community bans are invalid. I do think it would be a good idea to discuss longstanding indef blocks before unblocking so that relevant issues get handled proactively. The Nathanrdotcom arbitration case could have been avoided if such discussions had been standard practice a few months ago. Regardless of how any editor prefers to define a community siteban, this board serves useful functions that would otherwise land in ArbCom's overburdened laps. Durova^Charge! 14:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Close it down. Basically this is a new process for lynching and it has no consensus. So unless there is a consensus to keep it it should be regarded as rejected.--Doc^g 14:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I'll ask the same question as above, then. Might you point to one case, just one, in which a "lynching" (an improper decision to ban) actually took place? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • WP:CSN isn't a new proposal to be "accepted" or "rejected", it's the status quo -- it's been up and running for a couple of months already, and its policy basis was stable for five months. If there's no consensus, the default outcome is the status quo. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 15:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment If 'no admin will unblock' is the definition of a community ban, what happened here? - These discussions can be had on the current page, or some other page, but clearly there will still be a need for them to take place somewhere. Ehheh 14:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I've devoted half a year of volunteer work to making sure community sanctions don't degenerate into lynching. It's rather disappointing to see people who've had minimal involvement and who cannot cite one negative example attempt to summarily dismantle so much careful effort. The only lynching I see is the one at this MFD. Durova^Charge! 15:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I have not seen one positive example of why it is necessary, and people have cited negative examples. In addition, if it requires such a Herculean effort to prevent the community sanction noticeboard from degenerating into lynching, that is an essential problem with the way this noticeboard is constituted and you would spend your time better by doing something else. —Centrx→talk • 15:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Most of it was a matter of keeping abreast of discussions and planning refinements so the process would remain equitable and scalable. The only herculean effort has been in attempting to reason with people who leap to conclusions and read with bad faith. Durova^Charge! 15:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Effectively, that does not happen because an admin only bans if they think a ban is appropriate, which is exactly the situation without all these procedural formalities. If what you want is an admin to ban based on a skewed and easily manipulable poll at this noticeboard, regardless of their own judgement, then you do have lynchings. If you want admins to use their own judgement in not banning unless appropriate, then you have exactly the situation as before and all this political theory has no effect. —Centrx→talk • 17:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
          • My work as a coauthor of the disruptive editing guideline was dedicated in large part to help ensure that rank-and-file editors could bring appropriate cases to the attention of the site's sysops and to making sure that the process would be robust enough to withstand attempts at manipulation. These concerns garnered considerable attention and broad discussion while the guideline was in proposal phase. To the best of my knowledge they have been addressed adequately and the only counterexample offered thus far at this discussion has been - to say the least - dubious. This isn't about political theory but about practical benefits. To offer a fresh example, last week I needed to request checkuser and oversight. The checkuser resolved to the same continent where I had been involved in community banning an editor a few weeks previously. I had trouble recalling the name of the sockmaster account, but I was able to locate the appropriate thread in about three minutes at the board's archives. Before CSN got established it used to take me ten times as long to find comparable threads at AN and ANI archives, so instead of prolonged frustration I received a quick answer that eliminated one possibility as a red herring. This board serves useful functions and it works quite well. Durova^Charge! 18:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
            • CSN invented no new archiving technology. All you have are people doing it differently (I gather, though even that I don't see). There are people everywhere. There's no reason WP:AN couldn't be archived in the same way. Dmcdevit·t 18:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
      • "and people have cited negative examples." Then you can answer the question Seraphimblade keeps asking (and not getting an answer to): "Might you point to one case, just one, in which a 'lynching' (an improper decision to ban) actually took place?" So far, all anyone's pointed to is people making bad requests for banning -- which they could do on WP:AN just as easily -- but those bad requests get declined... which isn't a bad example against the noticeboard. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 15:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
        • The General von Klinkenberger one is a fine example. The only people saying he should not be re-blocked were people who otherwise never go to the noticeboard, and if it had been left to CSN proponents they wanted the original CSN to be a binding decision. That's not how Wikipedia works. —Centrx→talk • 16:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
          • So you're accusing the review of Ryulong's block of being "one case [...] in which a 'lynching' (an improper decision to ban) actually took place?" You think Ryulong led a lynch mob consisting of Mackensen, Sean William, SirFozzie, Crotalus, MichaelLinnear, and Zscout370 (all of whom endorsed)? Why do you think that decision to ban was improper? -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 02:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
      • "if it requires such a Herculean effort to prevent the community sanction noticeboard from degenerating into lynching, that is an essential problem with the way this noticeboard is constituted and you would spend your time better by doing something else." That would be trading the Augean Stables for the Hydra: instead of monitoring one forum to keep it clean, you'd be running around to everyplace else a ban might be discussed, trying to knock off any budding lynch mob, only to find more had formed on different pages, email lists, or IRC channels. How could you ever monitor them all? -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 15:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Bans are still discussed elsewhere and will continue to be discussed elsewhere, and there is no way to force anyone to post the dozens of bans per day there. Inasmuch as the community sanction noticeboard keeps it in one place, the administrators noticeboard serves the same purpose. —Centrx→talk • 16:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • In reply to Ehheh (talk · contribs) 'no admin will unblock' is, at least in my opinion, not a good definition of a ban. That is an indef and doesn't take into account a ban's allowances for blocking sockpuppets on sight and immediate removal of the banned editor's contributions. A ban is more than just an indef nobody will lift.--Isotope23 16:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
    • No, if someone is indefinitely blocked and uses sockpuppets, that is a circumvention of the block, which is not allowed. —Centrx→talk • 16:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
      • • Good point.--Isotope23 17:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Although I find the prospect distasteful, it's worth pointing out how that definition permits any single administrator out of 1200 to unilaterally establish full functionality of this noticeboard by simply announcing that he or she will implement and lift indefinite blocks in accordance with the outcome of consensus discussions and in the general manner applied at AFD. I'd prefer not to establish site practices on such house-of-cards foundations. Durova^Charge! 17:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
        • The foundation works just fine, and there is no way for you to prevent that foundation. If you ban or unban based on whatever the fickle outcome of the CSN discussion is, you are still personally accountable for that action and another administrator is free to undo that action depending on what the situation is, in just the very same manner as would be if there were not some special noticeboard. —Centrx→talk • 16:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Unless you want all this to descend back on AN and ANI again (you know, one of the reasons that the board was created in the first place). And agreed, the only Lynching that's taken place is the one to attempt to remove this board. In EVERY case where someone used the CSN board as a lever in an ongoing dispute, the community saw through it and did not fall for it. Give the community some credit. SirFozzie 15:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment If partial bans descended to AN and ANI they would virtually cease to exist on the community level. Durova^Charge! 15:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
    • You mean admins are not part of the "community" and the "real" "community" members are not allowed to post on AN and ANI? —Centrx→talk • 15:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Quite the opposite: I mean AN and ANI lack coherent means to archive partial bans. So, de facto, only a handful of people would be aware that a community topic ban exists. Enforcement would fall entirely on their shoulders and if a block on that basis ever gets contested it would be devilishly hard to find the thread that established its justification. That's what kept these things from becoming scalable before CSN began. Durova^Charge! 15:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
        • I'm not sure what "lack coherent means to archive partial bans". Surely ANI discussions are archived and searchable through Google, and surely anyone banned can be added to the List of banned users regardless of whether it was discussed on CSN? —Centrx→talk • 16:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The idea of bringing down the community in favor of AN or ANI is frightening. So what that there's two noticeboards? The last thing we need is to limit the power of community consensus in favor of administrative power. Rockstar (^T/_C) 15:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Care to give a rationale for that claim? No one is disputing the will of the community, but that this insular, self-perpetuating, bureaucratic forum that put "community" in the name doesn't represent it. Consensus discussions take place (with admins and non-admins) take place better elsewhere. Dmcdevit·t 18:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Where, exactly, would they take place better? RfC? ANI? Give me a break. Rockstar (^T/_C) 18:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Yes. Dmcdevit·t 18:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Even though both are jokes? Rockstar (^T/_C) 23:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
          • More people take ANI seriously than CSN. —Centrx→talk • 16:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

• Keep - the admin noticeboards are extreemly long anyway, and expecting non-admins to trawl through a large amount of non-relevant information isn't very considerate. Also, I don't understand the comments which imply this board constitutes some form of innovation - the community ban for Ste4k was essentially similar. Lastly, the board could be improved, I would suggest automatically removing any post that relates to an editor with a clean block log in the last 3 months or anyone who has been indefinitely blocked. Addhoc 16:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This MfD is yet another of many recent moves to strengthen the hand of elites relative to ordinary editors of WP. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Edivorce (talk • contribs) 16:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC).Edivorce 16:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Care to give a rationale for that claim? No one is disputing the will of the community, but that this insular, self-perpetuating, bureaucratic forum that put "community" in the name doesn't represent it. Consensus discussions take place (with admins and non-admins) take place better elsewhere. Dmcdevit·t 18:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
    • No, and stop spaming participants with cut and paste questions.Edivorce 19:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
      • How is that cut and paste? Why is Dmcdevit not allowed to ask questions? This isn't a poll; you don't just offer an opinion and that's that; this is a discussion. --Iamunknown 19:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
        • see this diffquestions to Rockstar and Edivorce are identical. May be other examples but I'm not inclined to look. I have indicated that I do not wish to further elaborate. Do you think you can compel my participation?Edivorce 20:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
          • Nope, but I would ask the closing administrator to take that into consideration. We're here to generate consensus, not do a quick poll. --Iamunknown 22:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
            • Now your just plain badgering me. Do you think your encouraging discussion or supressing dissent? Edivorce 22:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
              • You asked me a question, I responded. I wasn't aware that constituted badgering. I don't think our correspondence is either encouraging discussion or supressing dissent, it is only generating discord, and I will thus not respond to any further queries. --Iamunknown 00:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
                • I am embarrassed for you that I have to point this out but that was not the kind of "question" that you needed to answer. Edivorce 00:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, I don't see WP:CN as instruction creep; it's just a different place to have ban discussions and take some of load off WP:AN/WP:ANI as well as keep a clearer archive of bans, which is extremely useful from an administrative standpoint. I've come across several instances in the last couple of months where an indef blocked editor was tagged as banned when they were not actually banned. Having a central archive of ban discussions should make it vastly easier to determine if someone is really banned or just had a previous account indef'd and nobody bothered to unblock them (and this is a very important distinction). Of course now I've realized that I'm essentially repeating what Durova (talk · contribs) stated, just not quite so eloquently as Durova did. Suffice to say I completely agree with Durova's reasoning here. This board is not and should nto be a process change; it's just a different place to have the discussion. --Isotope23 16:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Just to clarify, there's been an active discussion at the talk page of WP:BAN for a week about what actually constitutes a community siteban. Before that discussion opened I was unaware that significant differences of opinion exist and I wish to affirm that regardless of that discussion's outcome CSN remains a useful noticeboard. Durova^Charge! 16:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Nuke it from orbit, it's the only way to be sure. Or redirect to Community Lynching Noticeboard. Luigi30 (Taλk) 17:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Alright, let's ask again. Can you point to one case where such a "lynching" has actually occurred, where a ban was placed improperly? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
    • ...and I would add that if the primary argument against this is misuse of community bans, this page doesn't make that any more of a reality than if we had the discussion at AN or ANI; the outcome will be the same there as here, just with more edit conflicts and a more befuddled archive of the matter.--Isotope23 17:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• As far as an example of misuse, please see above where I pointed out that Wikipedia:Community_sanction_noticeboard#Lovelight could have been resolved by a RFC, instead of an outright ban. At least a RFC would have seen more commenters then the few that commented there. Infact the user was even asking for a RFC, and likely would have held his or her contentious edits till after the Request for comment. So I'd say that community ban did not need to take place. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 17:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • That user had a substantial history of previous blocks and declined the option of appealing the outcome to ArbCom. A user conduct RFC could have opened while that discussion was ongoing, but as far as I can see nobody actually tried to initiate one. I'd be willing to discuss this with Lovelight via e-mail and help craft an alternate resolution if he or she wishes to return. If this is the worst example anyone can find, I'd say the board works pretty well. If the board disappeared it would be less easy to remedy such problems (if this even is one). Durova^Charge! 17:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Actually I've not done any digging, that one was pointed out to me. How about someone justify why this board is even needed? Show me some examples of "bans" that could not take place elsewhere? I don't see why this board, which was formally a place to post things to get wider community views on is needed to "ratify" bans. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 17:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
    • (repeated from above) the admin noticeboards are extreemly long anyway, and expecting non-admins to trawl through a large amount of non-relevant information isn't very considerate. Addhoc 17:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
      • So instead we should leave people's fate in the hands of a small noticeboard that not as well looked over as WP:AN or WP:ANI? (WP:AN is not all that bad by the way, and bans could be put there). Frankly I'm not happy with what I see, voting on bans of editors, not good. In addition I'm still waiting on replies to the arguments for deletion. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 17:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Having tried extensively to work with Lovelight, I can pretty definitively say that that one was headed for a ban. It's also pretty indicative of poor research here that no one's brought up that an RfC was opened on Lovelight, and showed no indication of changing the "I can revert anytime I want so long as I'm sure I'm right" attitude. Nor had extensive discussion with the editor done anything to change this. Even now, were Lovelight to come back around and say "Alright, look, I realize I really screwed up, but I'm going to do better", I'd strongly consider an unblock. I think (s)he had potential, but the way it was going, a ban was inevitable. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
          • Mmm ok, if you say so, though another thing I don't like, how come this took place while lovelight was blocked, ie, lovelight was unable to reply on that thread. Even arbcom has higher standards then that. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 17:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
          • Also... I'm still waiting for arguments on why this is needed in the first place. Whats wrong with WP:AN, which was going just fine as of Jan 1. In addition I do not see any replies to Dmcdevit's well written arguments. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 17:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
            • (copied again from above) expecting non-admins to trawl through a large amount of non-relevant information isn't very considerate. Addhoc 18:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
              • See my strong keep vote above and my threaded statements. I'm the editor who proposed this board. After several months of working with the community sanctions process I suggested the board would be a good idea for several reasons. Other editors surprised me with widespread and prompt agreement. It's worked well and I really think the reasons for this nomination are based on misunderstandings. Durova^Charge! 18:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
                • As to Eagle's question above, Lovelight was notified of the situation, and I offered to copy any comments (s)he had to the discussion on their behalf, as did several other editors. As I recall, some comments were made and copied. ArbCom has before asked blocked editors to submit statements and evidence by email. Lovelight was not kept in the dark or denied the opportunity to reply and comment. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I still don't see any counter to Dmcdevit's arguments. I'd also like to note that there is now an easy way to search AN and ANI archives. Kindly click over to this script written by GM, here. All archives of AN and ANI are searchable, and are thus very easy to find past banning discussions. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 18:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

For one thing, that tool wouldn't have helped me last week when I needed to perform a search and couldn't recall a sockmaster's username. That tool also does nothing to address the other uses of that noticeboard, or to address the fact that non-sysops have little reason to slog through these lengthy and primarily administrative boards in search of occasional ban discussions. Also that tool is of little value for survey purposes: it provides information to people who already know exactly what they're seeking, which is only one of many uses for an archive. Durova^Charge! 21:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Durova well Keep in mind that this board's "small" number of arhives is only temporary, provided that this passes MFD, (not that I think it should) the archives will only grow in number, so that argument on how the archives are simpler to search does not make much sense to me. Having the tool at least allows you to search for part of say... one of the socks, or someone else that you saw edit that discussion. Heck if you edited the discussion then you can do <yournamehere> AND <something that you recall in the discussion>. In any case I feel the arguments to delete are far stronger then those to keep, sorry. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 21:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I find it very odd that you imagine I have yet to consider such a thing. Naturally enough, a supportive referencing system will probably emerge after the raw archives grow to a certain size. My particular vision for that is a table formatted index that would correlate date, specific sanction, and outcome along with a section for relevant notes and a link to the archive thread. A similar compilation would be several orders of magnitude more difficult to assemble from the cluttered AN and ANI archives. For example, very few Wikipedians would recall the genesis of the JB196 community ban. It was originally an indefinite block that had been instituted shortly before the banning policy language changed last fall. The basis for that indef was somewhat open to challenge, so after his long term sockpuppet BooyakaDell was conclusively identified as the same person (technical limitations prevented a direct checkuser) the community ban discussion referenced the sockpuppet rather than the sockmaster. Why did that happen? Well, people do odd things sometimes on the spur of the moment and precedents hadn't been organized for ready reference. So recently when some people wanted to look up the case they had a hard time of it. I cannot emphasize this enough: this drive to eliminate a functional noticeboard originates from and is driven by people who have had minimal involvement in the process and who fail to appreciate why things have developed in the present direction. Durova^Charge! 01:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Dmcdevit's arguments were the board isn't perfect. Several editors have already commented the board should be kept and improved. What's with not reading the discussion? Addhoc 18:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow.. I have :) Don't worry. But I don't think you can fix something like this, especially when the previous method was working just fine. I found it rather scary that somebody did not like my unblock of an editor, (mind you thats per policy) and after I reported to ANI, they took it to the community sanction noticeboard. Something with that is just wrong, I'm sorry. ANI is just fine. For ban discusssions use WP:AN, which does not get all that much traffic for its visablitity. Also I'd suggest that you re-read the arguments, they are that the philosophy behind the board is flawed. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 18:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

But it wasn't working just fine. And the people who were actively working at it identified and solved the problems. AFD developed over time in response to growing pains. So did the FA concept. This developed also and it took its present form for good reasons that are being overlooked and jettisoned by many participants at this discussion. Durova^Charge! 00:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Before this board community bans were mostly done without non-admin input, now the community input is greater, while the final decision is still with the admins. Working just fine. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per HighInBC just above. GlassFET 18:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Incinerate --Durin 18:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Just another random note, how did WP:CN grant itself the ability to do community "revert parole". Has it become a mini arbcom or something? see here. Please clarify if it is or is not able to do that vie existing policy. If its not able to I'm wondering why nobody has commented saying "we can't do that". If it is able to why? Where is the discussion about that particular power? —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 18:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom approved of such partial-sanctions when they endorsed a topic ban that the community placed, and somebody took to ArbCom. SirFozzie 18:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Eh really? did they specifically endorse the community noticeboard handing them out? (note the noticeboard is by all means not the full community) I find that rather bizarre. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 19:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes they did. If my memory serves me right, the person who was bringing it even said that it was an invalid topic ban because the CSN board did it, and that the CSN did not have the mandate to do so. The ARbCom folks said "Decline, and endorse/ratify community sanctions"). I'll try to find it, but since the ArbCom folks don't archive declined ArbCom cases, it may take some time. SirFozzie 19:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Found it, it involved User: Gordon Watts, who was given a topic ban on articles relating to Terry Schiavo [1] SirFozzie 20:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy. --Durin 18:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep per Durova and HighInBC. In addition, one has to consider instances where no admin in his right mind would unblock a particularly onerous user, but there would be a chance that he'd be able to force his way back on via legal action. Good example of this is the Licorne manner. From what I've read of the matter, a year-long ban imposed by ArbCom was unilaterally extended to indefinite by one admin, with no discussion whatsoever. I thought of the possibility that he didn't know his year-long block had been extended to indefinite, and tried to come back only to find out he couldn't edit. Now how's that gonna look in court? Plus, this serves as a safety valve in case the evidence to support a ban isn't as solid as it looks on paper.

Now granted, there are exceptional situations where a ban shouldn't be discussed, but to my mind, you'd better have a pretty damned compelling reason not to do so (example, the Nathanrdotcom affair).Blueboy96 18:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

And that could not have been raised on WP:AN why? —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 18:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

For the sake of Wikipedia's image--I would think we would want to avoid the perception that Wikipedia is run by a "cabal." The Nathanrdotcom affair, from what I've read of it, was an emergency example where he should have been nuked, the blocking admin disclosing that this was an emergency example not to be discussed on-wiki, and that should have been that (without going into the gory details of it).Blueboy96 19:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Err what? so posting on AN is cabalish? How is posting on CN not cabalish then? I'm not sure your example applies here. (please note I'm ttalking about all cases, not just nathen.) —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 19:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Retire and Tag as historic per Dmcdevit's rationale. CSN seems to be just a formal (read bureaucratic) package of what AN/ANI already did quite efficiently. --Srikeit 18:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Dmcdevit. If we need a new page for something like this, it will be better to start fresh under a new name to make it clear that the "policy" contemplated by this page was mistaken and counter to our traditions.--Jimbo Wales 19:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you! - David Gerard 19:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Severe reform or deletion Tag as historic. Virtual committees form into oligarchies. And many of the discussions there have turned into votes and into lynchmobs. "One pitchfork-wielding villager, one vote" is not really a formula for consensus. The administrative issues can and should be dealt with on the administrator's noticeboard or sub-boards; the non-administrative issues already have several village pump sub-pages. This page is redundant for harmless uses and dangerous for the harmful ones that got it flagged with this proposed deletion - David Gerard 19:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete; the board has had a few months, and has not differentiated itself substantially from the discussion that took place at the administrator's noticeboard. It remains a much lower-profile location. Given the importance of these discussions, they should ideally occur at the highest-profile page, which is WP:AN. I think it would be best to fold this noticeboard back into the main administrator's noticeboard. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Recognize emerging consensus (including input from Jimbo) that the page should not continue as is. Therefore, tag page and archives as historic (alternative to "delete" as there were discussions that took place on this board that may need to be referred to in the future). Continue community discussion regarding appropriate procedures going forward. Give the Arbitration Committee a heads-up that they will be seeing some RfAr's that might otherwise have wound up on this board. Give the people who initiated this Board (particularly User:Durova) credit for a creative attempt to address issues even though some users believe it didn't work out as well as they hoped. Newyorkbrad 19:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Of course. Historic is quite correct - David Gerard 19:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete re nominator and seems like a back door way to ban users wheras I think the arbcom is the place for that in any case involving an established user, SqueakBox 19:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Retire and mark historical (or rejected) per Dmcdevit's reasoning. There's no real need to delete this outright, since information from previous discussions may be useful in dispute resolution. --Coredesat 20:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I'm not sure where those favoring deletion are proposing discussion about potential community bans should be held. Or is this really just an attempt to get rid of community bans? It's not clear from the nomination. Definitely keep, since the community needs the ability to ban chronically disruptive users without having to take each to arbcom, and there needs to be a central location for discussion of these decisions. --Minderbinder 20:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Err, no it would simply return to what we did before this came into being. :) Don't worry community bans will be with us for a long time to come, but hopefuly without the needless instruction creep. WP:AN is more then enough :) —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 21:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
    • And where would that be, it's not really clear? I don't see what's CREEP about this, it's simply a centralized community board to discuss potential community bans. Seems far less bureaucratic than sending clear cut cases to arbcom. So could someone explain how community bans would be handled without this board? --Minderbinder 12:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Bans for which there was some need of discussion have been handled for the past several years by discussion at more active representative places, most recently the administrators noticeboard. The bureaucracy is in the way some people have transformed the noticeboard into their own little fief, and have asserted the notion that a ban can only occur through this noticeboard and must be signed and stamped in a certain way. If it were just a page that worked in the same way as before, the only problem would be that it needlessly splits out and emphasizes a low-traffic activity that does not need to be split out and should not be emphasized as majestic. —Centrx→talk • 16:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Retire and mark historical Despite sounding less inclusive, administrors noticeboards fulfill same function. I do suggest the administrator noticeboard should change name. Though the admins are ones who take action, others are should take part in discussion too. nadav 20:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. These conversations will happen elsewhere if this page is closed, but then it will be harder keep track of them. We should have a page to document the most severe cases of disruptive editing. If you dislike the name of this page or introductory comments, then let's fix them. Jehochman (^talk/_contrib) 20:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Because.... sigh.... people are dumb. And Dmcdevit. -M^ask? 21:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Apologies. Something really wierd happened to this page some time after I created it, based on the conversation here. Apparently somewhere along the line it got renamed to Community sanction noticeboard, and since that day, people started looking at me funny. It took me a while to realize why, and what had happened. I never intended to cause this much trouble. My sincere apologies. --Kim Bruning 21:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Community input is good. Plays a different roll than the other noticeboards (all of which are dysfunctional). We should be encouraging its use. --JJay 22:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per the excellent reasoning by Dmcdevit. If community bans must be 'codified', then a proper place in the dispute resolution process should be made...somewhere after RFCs, Mediation, possibly even after ArbCom fails. It should not be easy, or casual, or hidden on a page that attracts it's own culture like RFA. That, in my mind, is the most frightening aspect. If one admin can block, and the other 1,199 won't undo it...then that's as easy as it should be. Anything that needs discussions, policy squables, wheel wars, can sort it self out in dispute resolution.--InkSplotch 22:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment Easy like creating a thread on AN saying "Anyone know a reason why I shouldn't block User X?", AN is JUST as hidden as CSN.. considering they're in the same top bar at the whole family of AN/ANI/CSN etcetera pages. And as for "Attracting its own culture" (which is scary to you), Please don't tell me that AN/ANI doesn't have its own culture. In fact considering that one of the reasons CSN was created in the first part was to get away from the AN/ANI subculture and get you know, non-administrators input (funny thing, non-admins feeling like they don't belong to an ADMINISTRATOR'S noticceboard?) to decisions.. I'm sorry, none of your arguments pass the smell test. SirFozzie 23:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

AN has many times more people watching it, and if it has any culture it is not a homogeneous subculture, because of its vastness and popularity. The CSN proposal does not talk about culture, it talks about some people being afeared of posting there, which can be corrected by a simple name change. It is called the "Administrators' noticeboard" (not "Administrator's noticeboard") because it is for notices for administrators, i.e. things that require administrator action, which a ban does. —Centrx→talk • 16:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Please read the apologies of the creator of Wikipedia:community noticeboard, the board that somehow morphed into this, in otherwords the original intent was not this. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 01:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I doubt anyone who participated in the original proposal supported the renaming to CSN. That shift was proposed by the same editor who had already tried to kill it in two different ways: by a completely out of process unilateral attempt to mark it historical and by putting it up for MFD shortly after its creation. At the time when the renaming was proposed I had reservations that the proposal amounted to a political move to marginalize the board and slate it for destruction. Although I don't like to think such a thing of any Wikipedian, today's developments go a long way toward validating that suspicion. Durova^Charge! 01:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that AN is "just as hidden" as CSN, I feel it gets much more traffic. Nor will I tell you AN/ANI doesn't have it's own subculture, but I will tell you it's a plus in this situation because I feel the AN/ANI subculture is of much wider focus than just "let's ban person x". Finally, I just don't buy the non-admins concern...seems like most of the voices at AN/ANI aren't admins. Funny thing. I think my arguments smell just fine.--InkSplotch 03:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep: while the objections are from eminently respectable users, I don't follow the logic. It seems to me:
  • If there is consensus to block a user, he will be, and should be, banned.
  • One legitimate use of polls is to demonstrate the existence of consensus.

  It's probably just as well to have quite long discussions, like the present Robdurbar one, off ANI, which is crowded enough as it is. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, but police vigorously to address some valid concerns raised above in respect of misuse of the noticeboard. Discussion of problem users needs to take place, and needs to take place over a longer timeframe than the typical archive threshold of the admin noticeboard, and needs to take place in isolation from the mountain of other crap that ends up on the admin noticeboard. We should fix this, not junk it. Guy (Help!) 09:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Break 2

• Delete This is Votes for Banning, nothing more. When someone decided that all old bans needed to be formally ratified, that's when I knew this had jumped the shark. I respect Durvoa's ideals, intent, and hard work, but this just isn't the way we should be doing things. Thatcher131 23:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I'm not putting a clear opinion either way. I just have some thoughts. I think AN and ANI are inappropriate places to discuss "community" matters. It is a simply that by their names and nature, they are perceived as sysop specific boards by a significant part of the community. This perception will limit participation, as well as burying such discussion in already long noticeboards. RfC may be a workable format for most of CSN's purpose, however it would require a revision of RfC and advertisement of this change. RfC could certainly be appropriate for proving exhaustion of community patience, imposing topic bans and so on. I am sure there are additional alternatives as well. However, before salting the earth on this noticeboard, an acceptable alternative needs to be provided. Vassyana 00:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I think Durova's objection is thought-provoking. There should be some forum for soliciting broad community input. Community enforced mediation needs such an outlet. Significant discussions regarding existing policy and guidelines could be linked to and announced in such a forum. RfCs (if such a route is taken) discussing community-imposed bans and parole could be noted on such a page. In essence, there are numerous "small" things that should be brought to the attention of the wider community. Village pump (miscellaneous) could be used for such a purpose, but I am concerned that might obscure the purpose of soliciting community input. I think the best solution for this purpose would be reverting back to the community noticeboard name, as that would well describe its role. An alternative could be to create a village pump page for such a purpose. This is all just my own view of things and you're welcome to take or leave my comments. Vassyana 00:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. — Athaenara 00:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
• Deleting this page probably isn't the right thing to do. Gently discouraging, and if persistent ultimately ignoring, people who try to use it as some kind of pillory, or to get up a vote to ban someone, is all that need be done. Under no circumstances must it be treated as a place to ratify bans or undo them. Bans are made by administrators acting on consensus of the community after due consultation and weighing up the circumstances, and can be undone when it is clear that no such consensus exists or by appeal to the arbitration committee or Jimbo. --Tony Sidaway 00:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and end this effort of removing community discussion from things certain admins don't like and folding everything back into WP:AN and WP:ANI. This idea of "Just nuke the freaking thing and move it to (insert admin board here)" is getting highly ridiculous and, frankly, somewhat insulting to the community. That is the key word here, Community. CASCADIA^Howl/_Trail 00:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • The admins are the people that enforce the opinion anyway, so I don't know what you mean. I do think there should be some sort of PR change (maybe name change or something) to the admin boards so they seem more inclusive of the community. nadav 01:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
• Question Will this actually be deleted or just deactivated and tagged historical? — MichaelLinnear 00:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
• Question I see several comments along the lines of a ban made at CN is implemented only because no admin is willing to unblock. Let's say I have a long think, or Lovelight emails me and convinces me that he should be unblocked. So I leave a note on an/i or CN and unblock. Would the participants in the discussion that resulted in a ban at CN really be ok with that? RxS 01:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • In my own practice of several months, I run my indef blocks through community ban discussions when I would prefer that unblocking occur by a corresponding community consensus. Three recent unilateral unblocks were phenomenally unsuccessful. Although these weren't all community bans, look up the recent threads on Jason Gastrich, Daniel Brandt, and MyWikiBiz (the last returned briefly under the username Zibiki Wym. When I don't necessarily think consensus discussion is needed I just indef block, as I did with PatPeter. When I do want discussion to precede any unban I put the matter to the community as I did with Arkhamite. As a side note, shortly before I proposed a formal siteban on JB196 I and his mentor made a joint offer: if he didn't violate WP:SOCK for four months we'd nominate him for unbanning and offer our joint support. I wouldn't have unbanned him unilaterally, but it seemed like an attractive solution that might bring some problem editors back from the edge. Durova^Charge! 01:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Mmm really? I just did an unblock of a "ratified" community ban. Its not a way to bypass the ability of any one admin to unblock. A ban is in place for as long as not one out of 1200+ admins are willing to unblock. Thats much more difficult criteria to meet than getting 10-14 people to "endorse" or "ratify" a community ban. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 02:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • (EC) Comment Except in exceptional circumstances, I consider it extremely poor form and judgment to reverse another admin's actions without consulting them first. If you can come to agreement with them, great, no need to escalate at all. If you and they cannot come to agreement on the matter (or if the matter's old and they've since left or gone inactive), you discuss it with the community. There's very rarely a need for unilateral action. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
    • To Durova, I should have been clearer, I'm not thinking about unblocking Lovelight (as anyone close to that situation might guess), I'm speaking in general terms. Maybe the question is better phrased if the CN discussion carries enough weight by itself to prevent an admin from unblocking. As opposed to not wanting to reverse another admins block without some discussion, which brings me to the next point:
    • To Seraphimblade, if the only thing preventing me from unblocking is not wanting to reverse another admin, then what role does CN have that couldn't be performed via a conversation in any number of places? RxS 01:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
    • A banned editor is no longer banned when there is no consensus for the ban. An administrator in consultation with the community may unban a banned editor. This can sometimes be a controversial move, but a ban is only a ban when there is consensus for it. --Tony Sidaway 01:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Clearly that's the case, but does a consensus at CN represent a general community consensus? RxS 02:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
    • (In response to your earlier comment) CN is useful in quite a number of ways, besides that. It provides a place to start up a discussion if someone requests unblocking, but you're not too familiar with their history, and you're not sure if you should or not. (Especially if the blocking admin has left/is on wikibreak/has gone inactive/etc. etc.). Also, it provides a means to bring up problematic editors who may have already earned such a ban by incorrigible, persistent bad behavior, but haven't necessarily been noticed yet. Now, could all that be done at ANI? I suppose it could. Would I like to see that? Well, you know, I have an 8 megabit downstream pipe, and I -still- get noticeable lag loading that page. I imagine it's tremendously worse for dial-up users. Of course, once you're done making your edit, there will be an edit conflict. (There will always be an edit conflict if you're posting more than three words to ANI, I've generally been shocked on the rare occasions there isn't one.) Then our poor dialup user gets to wait for the page to reload. Again. And then put the comment back in. And by this point, likely have another edit conflict, and give up in frustration. In theory, we could move every noticeboard in the place to the One Great Noticeboard, and everything from Village Pump discussions to policy proposals to long offtopic rants to ban discussions to deletion decisions can go there. In practice, this would be unwieldy and unworkable (much like ANI tends to get). Why not separate things out a bit? As counterintuitive as it may seem, it tends to encourage more participation, not less. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
      • I get that for sure, but I think you have to balance ease of use with making sure enough people are aware of the discussion so you can really declare a broad consensus for an action as extreme as a ban. That's why I'm wondering about consensus at CN vs a general community consensus. If they are the same then maybe there's not a problem. If they aren't then it either needs to be fixed or not be in the business of banning editors. If they aren't the same it just comes down to a ban there being effective as long as an admin doesn't come along and unblock (with discussion with the blocking admin of course). Which is the same as it would be if CN didn't exist at all. RxS 03:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
        • There should be a layout change of AN/I. I suggest that the main page should include only the initial post or a summary provided by the poster, and that each case then gets its own page. Or else something like the AfD layout. nadav 03:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
        • (in reply to RxS) Any community consensus that we determine, be it AfD, RfA, AN(I), a talk page, RfC, or anything else by definition is determined representatively, by a self-selected subset of the community. Some members of the community won't notice, some won't care what the outcome is one way or the other, some won't care enough to participate in the discussion, some wouldn't have the first clue how. But I'll say for myself, and I know I'm not the only one, I was at first pretty hesitant to post on the boards marked "Administrators" for a while, even after being told it was perfectly fine. "I mean...but...you know, those are the admin boards." On the other hand, "community" makes it very clear that everyone is welcome to participate. Yes, sometimes that means people will start up a useless, hysterical thread. Tell me, with a straight face, that useless, hysterical threads don't occur on ANI. This will just drive the good ones and the hysterical ones alike back there, to get less review (because they're under a much bigger pile), and probably a less considered decision. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
          • Well, you're right as far as hysterical threads go, 4 or 5 times a week someone drives a little car into AN/I and sure enough everyone puts little red noses on, stuff themsleves into it and they drive around in circles for awhile. And you're right about consensus being self selected, where ever a discussion takes place, consensus is formed by those who choose to participate. But my concern is whether enough eyes are put on the discussions there to to have enough of a quorum to really be called a community consensus. That's one point, the other is what happens when an admin comes along and unblocks after having a word with the blocking admin. Does that mean that there really wasn't/isn't a consensus for a ban? Does it mean that in the end CN doesn't have any ability to enforce it's bans? Maybe the best way to do is to strip away any final decision and just discuss it until someone puts the block on or it becomes clear that no consensus exists. I mean, that's the way it would be done at AN/I right? Someone says, here's a real knucklehead...what should we do? And at some point somone says that s/he indef blocked him. People argue (or not) for a while and some resolution is reached. Overall, it might be best to keep it in a larger forum, at least until there's enough traffic to break it out for space reasons. A bit like 3RR etc... RxS 04:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete/historic tag per nom, Dmcdevit, Jimbo Wales, David Gerard, and a bunch of others. Starting fresh is a very good idea. -- Ned Scott 01:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment many of the discussions on CN seem like they should have been user conduct RfCs instead. On the other hand, user conduct RfCs are fairly useless in their current form--even if there is strong consensus that a user's behavior is problematic, the RfC has no enforcement mechanism. Also, the participants in an RfC tend to be the people who are already involved in the dispute. But if the RfC process could be changed so there was broader community participation and tangible results, that could take the place of much of what CN is trying to do. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, there is mediation. Also if a problem continues, then ArbCom obviously will use the RfC material extensively. And I still think the administrator notice board should fulfill the role of WP:CSN. nadav 03:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep' as the nominator says, the board was intended to be used for pressing issues affecting the community. It has been used for a number of such discussions, and therefore I think it is fulfilling its purpose. From the activity there, the community of users seems to think it a very appropriate location. There is obviously some dissatisfaction at present dispute resolution procedures, and this experiment at alternative should be allowed to continue. I thingk it proved its value in the Robdurbar/Wonderfoot situation. DGG 21:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Section break 3

• Weak delete I think it's a slight misinterpretation of banning policy—I myself was a bit confused about it. Is there really difference between a community ban and an indefinitely blocked user with a protected user talk page? Given that both have some discussion behind them, perhaps on WP:ANI (which I encourage non-admins to attend). I have a feeling that the general, informal definition of "an indefinite block no admin is willing to undo" is the one best for Wikipedia. Having a label, signed in triplicate, stamped in red ink of his majesty, and sealed with a signet ring, seems sans much point. There may be another solution, but I'm not exactly fond of this one. Gracenotes^T § 03:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
• Final thought I've never been a political person. The CSN archives demonstrate which editors at this thread have hands on experience in the community sanctions process and I stand proudly in the knowledge that the people who have the most familiarity with this topic have supported me. Whatever the outcome of this discussion, you have my heartfelt appreciation for your volunteer efforts. I have notified the participants at the ongoing community enforceable mediation case of the potential that this discussion will place their dispute resolution in limbo. Although this pile-on discussion is beyond my control I have urged those people to continue productive discussions and to disregard the noticeboard's status as my problem rather than theirs. They have enough to work out on their own. It is my considered opinion that the community's priorities are misapplied in its collective decision to make this noticeboard a major point of dispute. Two other ultimately more important areas also have my attention. One of them is the potential synergies of a new WikiProject I recently started. The other is a negative dynamic I have been coaching a team of volunteers to counteract. I have detailed my concerns about the latter in a message directly to Jimbo. And if the title of this post reminds some readers of a disreputable daytime television program, the reference is not accidental. I regard this discussion as a destructive sideshow and sincerely hope that my diligent efforts will not be dumped by a hasty and superficial process. And to any editor who may resent the terms hasty and superficial, please review my previous statements in careful detail. This entire discussion saddens me profoundly. Durova^Charge! 03:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Aside from the other issues, suggesting that the three of us with a combined 2 and a half years of arbitration experience (not to mention Jimmy Wales) don't have "familiarity with this topic" or aren't hands-on is a bit off-kilter, to say the least. I'm positive others who I'm not so familiar with have similar experience and don't deserve to be belittled. Dmcdevit·t 05:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
    • To the best of my knowledge, none of those people were active during a half year of this process's specific development. Your own most recent post to my user talk page admits that you barely gave a thought to community enforceable mediation and hadn't viewed the faq that I had written for it, and unfortunately your post here devotes itself to a perceived slight rather than to the limbo you would create for that program which I spearheaded in part to lighten the load on Jimbo and the arbitration committee. This is no isolated example of the lapses that have plagued this discussion and your emphasis on the positions of authority held by some of its participants makes me shake my head and recall a Biblical verse. It begins with Cast not your pearls... and continues with something less polite, but its message is a reproof of my own decisions: I have misdirected my energies to help individuals who not only fail to appreciate the effort, but (lest they trample them under, and turn and rend you) who are making a pointed effort not only to dismantle the work but to drag down a reputation I have worked very hard to build. I am, more than anything, bewildered and disappointed by these developments and I hope very much that there is another lesson for me here than that ancient advice to volunteer for a different set of people. Durova^Charge! 07:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Of course I wasn't involved in it; I think it is a bad idea, and you do not. It's gotten to the point where something needs to be done about it, in my opinion. I am not personalizing the issue, but you appear to be; this isn't for lack of appreciation for your other work here, or in order to ruin your reputation. I only bring up my past experience as an arbitrator (I have almost never before found myself invoking it like this) because you seem to think that this noticeboard is appreciated by the Arbitration Committee and Jimbo Wales, and I am trying to tell you that it isn't. Not a one of them has yet expressed agreement with it, and several, I included, disagree. And you continue the invocations. Dmcdevit·t 07:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Not only have I never suggested such an opinion, I have repeatedly disavowed all permutations of that accusation yet you continue to assert it most unfairly. What I actually did at the banning policy talk page was cite a rejected arbitration request that affirmed the community's right to issue topic bans as part of a rebuttal against Tony Sidaway's blanket dismissal of several sentences of longstanding policy. Sidaway had claimed those passages were made up from whole cloth and supported by no legitimate basis whatsoever. The citation I provided demonstrated solid grounds for community topic bans and showed that Tony Sidaway hadn't researched his claims. Strictly speaking, the onus fell to his shoulders and to yours to look up that background before attempting to alter policy that had functioned without complaint for several months, but there was nothing inappropriate about my diffs or the emphasis I placed on them. WP:AGF should have prevented you from construeing any mischief out of that, yet you did, and you have either not read or disregarded the clarifications I have consistently provided in response. At some point all benefit of doubt must exhaust itself and I am left with no other option than to call these distorted repetitions slurs against my judgement and character. Such tactics may indeed sway the opinions of people who read superficially, but they squander my work, my talents, and the remainder of my good faith. I should probably stop here because all effort at reasoned discussion has been fruitless. In the words of Louis Armstrong, There are some people that, if they don't know, you can't tell them. Durova^Charge! 08:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
          • Please remember that most people aren't joining in any such slur or dismissal of your hard work. Think how many people have participated in WP:CN discussions with the same earnest good faith you've shown. Think of Seraphimblade's repeated request for examples of bad decisions reached, a request that went unanswered every time. That shows your efforts were not in vain. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 08:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
            • Please note that that request has been replied to many times, but any additional instruction creep must not show just that its not bad but that its actually useful. I find this becomming a place to take editors that you don't like, and try to get them banned, and its also fast becomming a mini arbcom, handing down sanctions such as 1RR. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 16:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Tony Sidaway and others. As to whether it should be rejected or not, I have a less clear view. On the one hand, community ban discussions are a large and discreet set that could be broken out of ANI if there is a desire to keep that page at a manageble size. On the other, some of the concerns that it is insular and arrogating to itself inapropriate power are reasonable. In the broader context. We must resist instruction creep and unnecessary beaucracy but also bear in mind that not all features of the community scale well and things do have to change as we get larger. Eluchil404 04:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • You might want to note that Tony has strucken out his old comment changed it. his view point. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 16:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Tony's change of heart notwithstanding, I still think his original opinion makes good points. Anyway, I routinly opose the deletion of active or once active processes. Even if misguided they are generally better left tagged historical/rejected than deleted outright. Eluchil404 19:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I haven't made up my mind on whether the board should stay active or such, but But Durova makes good arguments for keeping. In any event, deletion will make inaccesible to non-admins a large number of discussions about a variety of topics. Therefore, even if the board ceases to be used, it should be marked as historical and not deleted. JoshuaZ 04:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep so the 99% of us who aren't administrators can see the history. No opinion yet on whether the board should remain active. Kla'quot 05:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • So if deletion isn't an option, should deciding whether it gets the axe like WP:PAIN or WP:EA be?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict with Ryu, this looks redundant now...) As a note (to all three above), that's not really a problem if the noticeboard is discontinued, but I would note that all the history is available in the archives (for which there is no reason to delete) and all present threads would be archived before any deletion, so I don's see the potential for loss of any history as a problem (I noticed others recommending it be retired and tagged historical, and would not mind that option). Dmcdevit·t 05:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

For my part, I think that this is probably the wrong venue to discuss what would amount to a policy change. Community input is a good thing in most cases, and confirmation of a community ban that doesn't have to involve the arbitration committee is probably a good thing. The "if no admin restores them, the ban stands" position counts on all administrators being aware of the situation, and in agreement. Rogue admins (and rouge ones!) do exist, they're thankfully rare, and I can say that 99.x% of wikipedia admins are good ones, but counting on not one person being willing to reverse a ban is a little too biased towards never community-banning anyone. Wintermut3 05:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Concurrent with this discussion is one at WT:BAN; please note that the policy provision in WP:BAN#Community ban that mentioned WP:CSN, which had been stable for five months, has now been repeatedly deleted without consensus (there or here) despite objections, restorations, and ongoing discussion. For a while the policy was protected to prevent edit-warring, but upon unprotection the deletions resumed. The same topsy-turvy argument has been made there as here, that the status quo is a "change" which needs consensus to be retained, while these deletions should stand even though there is no consensus for them. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 05:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep. This board is a voice for the community and a means of making sanctions more representative of the community's will. Everyking 05:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • We don't need a vigilante version of the arbitration committee, which this board has surely become.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • If the community's voice were actually listened to and community bans were consistently honored and enforced then I would be inclined to agree with you. However, that is not the case and until it is this needs to be removed to avoid giving editors the false impression that it is. --ElKevbo 18:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
• Don't keep it. Either delete or (preferably) mark as historical. Intentionally or not, it's just a place to vote on banning someone, which is not how Wikipedia works. The GordonWatts case showed me that that noticeboard is a bad thing, where annoying behaviour by the person being discussed led to a certain amount of unkindness in some of the people discussing him, which led to wiki-lawyering, which led to more unkindness, which eventually led to a ban which was not really justified at the start (but unfortunately was at the end). I don't know what the alternative would have been, but I think that having a page where someone can nominate someone else for banning and the whole community can come along and "vote" about it is a really bad idea, and I think that the "community discussion" led to an escalation of the problem. ElinorD (talk) 06:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
• I am persuaded that this page would be better off deleted. It obviously does not enjoy the consensus of the community as a venue for discussion of sanctions. --Tony Sidaway 08:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
• Retire and mark as historical, otherwise we'll just have the same thing happen again... and again... Andrewa 09:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - I don't understand the recent trend towards removing noticeboards (including two recent MfDs on RfCN). It is always, definitively, better for a decision on any issue to be made by the community than by admins or the ArbCom. Broader input is better. Wikipedia may not be a democracy, but it shouldn't be an autocracy either. Walton ^{Need some help?} 09:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
• Kill per Jimbo (obviusly marking as historical is better than deletion, though). Also, having things like this to "allow community input" just reinforces the ridiculous notion that AN and AN/I are only for admins. JPD (talk) 11:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• Actucally I think the names "Administrator Noticeboard" and "Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents" do more to reinforce that notion than anything else... this perception existed long before there was a Community Noticeboard.--Isotope23 12:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Hence my use of "reinforce" rather than "create". If the names need to be changed as well to get rid of the impression, fine, but that's not the issue being discussed here. JPD (talk) 13:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm involved in discussions on the board so I'm not going to vote here. I just thought I'd add this. When I first used the page I used it as a noticeboard - I didn't request a ban for the user I was reporting. Many of the responses to that post asked "what sanction is being requested here" - since that I've made 2 reports and I followed the "request a sanction" logic. Having read through this and considering my own first use of the page the "request a sanction" side of the page is a problem and I sincerely hope I, as a user of the page, haven't added to that. Having said that, the page is important we need a space to discuss serious disruption as per WP:DE: "In order to protect against frivolous accusations and other potential exploitation, no editor shall be eligible for a disruptive editor block until after a consensus of neutral parties has agreed that an editor has behaved in a disruptive manner." The options of RfC, WP:WQA and 3rd opinion are good but I've never seen a block or warning issued because of RfC or 3rd opinion and WP:WQA is really for incivility and personal attack issues. I would like to see this board kept but I think the sanction part of it should be seriously reconsidered--Cailil ^talk 14:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• Do not delete even if we stop using it. Mark it historical instead. Friday (talk) 14:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. I don't dispute that this page performs tasks that once were handled at WP:AN/I, and handled fairly well. The page was created not to invent a new layer of bureaucracy, but to relieve pressure on an already heavily-edited and lengthy page. (I suspect that's why we have separate pages for AN, AN/I, and AN/3RR, yes?) Other beneficial side effects include a reduced load on ArbCom, reduced AN/I drama (by providing a place for specific discussion of community-imposed sanctions), and often a much faster method of dealing with disruptive editors. (If someone wants to rename the page, that's fine by me.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Right, but really these would be better of at AN (even if AN were renamed). AN gets much more traffic then this board, and anything that has to do with an editor's future on wikipedia really ought to have the most eyes as humanly possible. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 16:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, but — we need to very carefully moderate this page so that it doesn't become a place for people to go to whinge and complain about people they're in disputes with. That's not what this page is about. It's about handing out community bans, and the second a discussion appears to not have consensus to do so, it needs to be removed immediately, because the Community Sanction Noticeboard is not part of the dispute resolution process, it never will be, and having people who are not candidates for a real ban bickering back and forth on the page is highly counter-productive. --Cyde Weys 15:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Exactly: With this page dedicated to this topic, in a stable public location with accessible archives, everyone concerned about banning discussions can watch it like a hawk. But how could you watchlist and monitor such discussions if they were scattered all over (and off) Wikipedia? One minor proviso: discussions gone wrong should be closed and archived, not deleted, so the reason it got closed can always be reviewed. What we do right, and what we do wrong, should all have an audit trail. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 04:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Well stated! This seems to be the crux of the objections, and you've provided a good solution. Jehochman (^talk/_contrib) 16:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• • • Cyde: "[Whinging and complaining] is not what this page is about. It's about handing out community bans" Jehochman: "This seems to be the crux of the objections." Really? What about Tony Sidaway's "Under no circumstances must it be treated as a place to ratify bans or undo them"? The question of whether discussion about bans should be at AN/I or a separate noticeboard for reasons of high traffic (the argument goes both ways) is one thing, but the idea that bans are ratified by some sort of formal process, rather than subject to normal wiki processes and review is not one I like. JPD (talk) 17:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I also totally agree with Cyde Weys's comments about making sure the page is moderated.--Alabamaboy 16:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
• Reject. Cyde explains exactly what we need to do to make this work and is completely correct. It's impractical and not worth the effort, things were working fine before. Mangojuice^talk 17:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• "things were working fine before" -- How do you know? If all the worst accusations about what did or might happen on CSN (which you can watchlist and monitor because you know where it is) also happened in other banning discussions on other pages you never saw, or on off-wiki chatboards, mailing lists, and IRC channels you might never get to see, how would you ever know they happened? What if "things were working fine before" only means the things that went wrong simply never came to light? -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 04:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as this board only reinforces the erroneous belief that discussion amongst a handful of like-minded editors is sufficient to ban another editor. As proven by the recent incidents surrounding Gen. von Klinkerhoffen, if even one admin believes that an editor should be unbanned then all the talk in the world on this board will not change the fact that the editor is de facto not community banned. Unless and until the policy is changed this board only serves to muddy the issues and confuse editors. --ElKevbo 18:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• "this board only reinforces the erroneous belief that discussion amongst a handful of like-minded editors is sufficient to ban another editor." -- The same version of WP:BAN#Community ban that points to this board also says "Community bans must be supported by a strong consensus and should never be enacted based on agreement between a handful of admins or users." So that policy refutes the erroneous belief. Unfortunately, the same people who keep deleting the mention of this board from that section also keep deleting "and should never be enacted based on agreement between a handful of admins or users." [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] Apparently a "handful" is an acceptable quorum as long as it's composed solely of admins. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 05:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Any mechanism devoted to banning users needs a different basis. There's too little focus on dispute resolution here, too much ad hominem. -Will Beback · † · 18:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Is this supposed to be part of the Dispute Resolution process? The other noticeboards where banning discussions took place before CSN was created (AN and ANI) explicitly are not part of Dispute Resolution. On the other hand, CSN discussions sometimes do come up with topic or article bans to let an editor contribute editing with limitations, so problem-solving does happen. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 04:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
    • The point is that people are bringing users there for bans, which are then discussed ad nauseum, when the appropriate venue would be some form of dispute resolution. —Centrx→talk • 16:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
      • People bring other users many places -- including WP:AN, WP:ANI, WP:AIV, WP:RFArb, and the various WP:RFCs -- when they should be talking directly with the others, or seeking a 3rd opinion or mediation. The solution is not to delete all the pages that people ever mistake for the complaint department, but to keep instructing those people on better ways (and places) to handle disputes. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 02:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep Bans are supposed to be the result of community consensus. There ought to be a reogniozed, centralized place for discussions that help form and demonstrate that consensus. This page is serving that function. It may need improvment or procedural reform, but ther is no good reason that I can see to toos out the history here and start from scratch, quite possibly makign many of the same mistakes. The idea that a ban is "a block that no admin will overturn" merely encourages wheel-wars. A single admin should not have a veto over community consensus. Neither should a single admin or a few willing to block establish such consensus "by default". Consensus is, or should be, established and changed by discussion, preferably informed discussion, and thsi is what this page should be for. DES ^(talk) 20:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep per Durova and Seraphimblade. If there are concerns about it becoming "votes for banning", the answer would be to police it appropriately, not to delete it or force it inactive. If it doesn't appeal to you as a venue, fine - don't visit it. Allow other editors to continue making good-faith, sensible use of the noticeboard to try to take effective measures in resolving disputes without dumping things on Arbcom. I find utterly bizarre the suggestion that merging this into ANI would be productive; ANI is already a battleground and the first port of call for "user X did thing Y, this is outrageous, urgent siteban!", not to mention hideously unmanageable (edit conflicts, laughable archive situation). Durova has invested a great deal of effort into well-thought-out methods to clarify, organise and make accessible the community's dispute resolution efforts - the cross-referenced historical archive is a great idea, for one thing, and while it's true that it could theoretically be implemented at ANI, it'd take an inordinate amount more work because of the traffic level and the diversity of discussions that take place there. It disappoints me to see a pile-on rejection of that work in the absence of any evidence that the board is harmful, and without any effort at mitigating or resolving legitimate but thus-far hypothetical concerns. Much of this discussion appears to be motivated more by "I don't like it" knee-jerk reaction than by objective consideration of Durova et al's reasoning. --YFB ¿ 22:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I don't think it's a "lynching" process, because while everyone can discuss about banning someone, it is an admin, a bureaucrat, or a steward that is actually issuing and enforcing the ban. And I believe these admins, bureaucrats, and stewards have rational mind to discern if a "lynching" is taking place. Also for the concern of excessive bureaucracy, I disagree with the notion that this CSN page promotes instruction creep and bureaucracy. Instead, CSN is exactly the opposite of bureaucracy. It neither has formal "officers" nor any complex process, and is basically a process with grassroot input to balance out the top-down, cabal-ish structure alleged by some editors in Wikipedia. Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 22:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete--Duk 00:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

AFD is not a vote. Please state your reason. Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 01:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

OK. It isn't needed. If I ever impose a community ban I'll simply make a note at wp:ani that concludes; "request any admin to review and modify as they see fit". Creating a sanction noticeboard takes a simple and functional concept and makes it more complicated, gives it a life of its own and creates a new group of people who hang out there. It's bureaucracy and admin page creep. Since when is it a good idea to take something simple that works fine and make it more complicated? I encourage all admins to KISS this one and don't use the sanction noticeboard. --Duk 02:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

And to reply to Durova about the "experimental" Wikipedia:Community enforceable mediation, that's even more bureaucracy creep! Keep it on its own page and don't use it as an excuse to redefine community bans. --Duk 03:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Is usefull to have in one place concentrated all debates about banning, this is helping Wikipedia to develop policies about this, precedents are easier to find. If there is a question about why a certain user was banned anybody knows at which archives to look.--MariusM 01:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep per Durova & Seraphimblade. JRG 02:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• I am going to point out one thing, by looking at the comments it does not seem like the whole of the community supports this board. That ought to be taken into consideration when closing this, especially if this board is to have authority to envoke various sanctions, including banning a user. With the amount of opposition this board is getting, I think we need to reconsider what we allow it to do. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 03:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • In theory, the board can do nothing. It is interestd wikipedians gathering wherever they find convenient (on-wiki) that have the authority. It is true that the board doen not perfectly represent the wikipedia community (which has the power as a whole), but I just don't see how it does so any worse than ANI and isn't perennially backlogged. If community decisions made elsewhere are not respected as not having the official seal of CSN that'a a problem, if people want to discuss these issues rather than leaving them up to the individual judgement of admins that's not. Eluchil404 04:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Official seal! :O This is the same thing that WP:AN is good for :) There is no reason that on the slower paced (as compared to WP:ANI) WP:AN cannot deal with bans, as it gets much more traffic then this board. And as I said the amount of opposition really gives me pause as to, whether or not this board has the support of the community to do something as critical as banning. If it were doing anything else, I might be ok with it, as far as community support goes. but this board has basically given itself the power to tell users they are no longer welcome. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 06:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Sometimes the admins alone can't make a desicion to whether they banned a user or not so we need this page for the community to decide whether they should banned a certain user or not. Sure on rare occasions this page has been both abused and vandalised but Wikipedians do make mistakes. This is a great page for community concensus for decision.--PrestonH^{(Review Me!) • (Sign Here!)} 04:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Admins are a large part of the community, and anyone can post on the administrative noticeboards. —Centrx→talk • 17:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Admins are a significant part of the community, but as for a "large part", no: admins form only 0.002 percent of the community; 859 admins out of 47,479,407 users. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 06:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Number of participating editors is what matters. Apply the 90-9-1 Rule and you'll see Centrx was not far off. nadav 06:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. It is useful for obvious cases of chronically disruptive users, which do not need to be resolved by Arbcom. Tankred 04:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I think you are missing the point. There are already dispute resolution mechanisms and noticeboards for dealing with disruptive users that do not have the problems of this noticeboard. —Centrx→talk • 17:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• 2nd Comment: As one of the only people having the dubious honour to ever apply a policy from a deleted page... I wonder if this time, we'll have admins specifically ignoring this particular page, even though it exists. --Kim Bruning 14:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, or move to Wikipedia:Votes for banning to more accurately reflect the purpose it has assumed. —freak(talk) 18:00, May. 5, 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Durova. The reaction to the Daniel Brandt brew-ha seems to be a "throwing out the baby with the bath water" move. Like most everything on Wikipedia WP:CN is far from perfect but it does provide a useful function, particularly in actively encouraging community input on topic bans and the like. WP:CN does this far better then the Admin noticeboards and is more approachable for those who don't belong in the "admin clique". I support active attempts to reform and refocus the board but there is no need to delete it. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 19:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Why not invest those same resources in reforming the AN boards to be more approachable by the community? nadav 19:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
    • For the same reason that the US government tout Campaign finance reform instead of addressing the flaws of a Two-party system. There is a deeply in bedded culture on the admin boards that would require drastic and radical change, not only in practice but also perception. For the use of the broader community, especially with the constant flux of new users, the WP:CN board has much better chance of being "tweaked" to prevent Daniel Brandt type incidents and still maintain its benefits and functionality then the culture of the Admin boards has of being radically changed.Agne^Cheese/^Wine 19:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete/tag as historical/shut down in some way per pretty much every reason given above. – Steel 19:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Break 4

• Keep As an admin, I believe admin power should extend up to blocking, but that indefinite blocks should be reviewed and bans made by a group more clearly representative of the community, through the community. I believe community review serves an important and useful function and should remain in place. --Shirahadasha 03:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • One of the issues is that the community sanction noticeboard is frequented by far fewer people and is less representative. —Centrx→talk • 04:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - I'm of the same general opinion as the above; although the actual ability to block rests with Administrators, Community Banning is - and always has been - inclusive of non-Administrators, and as such this page is strongly justified ~ Anthony 22:27, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • So administrators' boards aren't or shouldn't be inclusive of the community? Why the redundancy? nadav 23:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The AN's audience is mostly admins. You can hardly find any non-admin users commenting there. Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 23:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

AN gets a whole lot more traffic then this page. We shouldn't splinter the community into multiple fora. Being an admin is not supposed to be a big deal, and everyone should give their input at AN. The energy spent on maintaing this page should be devoted instead to reforming AN to have broader appeal. nadav 00:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

We should splinter the conversations so people can track the conversations that interest them, without having to filter through large volumes of correspondence. If you want to watch everything, just add all the pages to your watch list. Jehochman (^talk/_contrib) 13:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

That's not a very good reason to keep a redundant alternative board that is checked less often. A better solution is merely to organize ANI better. nadav 21:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

ANI is geared to quick, in-the-moment reaction to events as they are happening. A community ban needs a calmer, more deliberative process that's better able to check for the possibility that some wrong assumptions might have been made. Best, --Shirahadasha 04:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

• Return its functions to ANI. Yes, the page contains the word "administrator"; still, it was always clear to me that I was welcome to participate there, even when I was not an admin. If necessary, find ways to make it clearer to non-admins that they can participate in ANI. As it stands, this noticeboard has become a place to propose a ban as soon as there's a single dispute with a user and then basically to vote on it. Heimstern Läufer 16:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep but Rename as per Heimstern Läufer above. Providing such differentiation of content of various actions is useful, but in many cases I think people have gotten the impression that this is an admin only page. I know I was one of them. Maybe make this specifically a subpage of RfC and/or a follow up to same? John Carter 01:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't understand. It looks like you think this deletion discussion is about WP:AN? nadav 07:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep Wikipedia spends too much effort protecting troublemakers because they might, someday, eventually become useful contributors and not enough effort creating a good environment for the rest who are working constructively. The (non-admin) community needs a place where concerns can be expressed and taken seriously. Raymond Arritt 02:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: There seem to be two things being overlooked here. One is that the community appoints the admins. It's not supposed to be a big thing, we're just community members who have shown that we'll respect the rules and therefore can be trusted to do things that are a bit harder to reverse. We don't get any other privileges. The other is that admins are bound by policy. If ever we use our sysop powers to do things that aren't supported by policy, that's grounds for de-sysopping. But there doesn't seem to be any policy governing the outcome of votes on WP:CSN, so its decisions aren't really a lot of help. No change of vote. Andrewa 03:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

• Response Take a look at this section of policy. It should be of some clarification to you. 76.7.198.131 16:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, and I think it supports what I said above. It reads in part The processes surrounding community bans are presently highly controversial. Although it's part of an official policy page, this indicates to me that there's no consensus as to what the policy is or should be. There have been a dozen or so edits to this section in the last few days alone, and most of Wikipedia talk:Banning policy is dedicated to this issue. Andrewa 01:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

• Retire & Mark Historical I think more people watch AN & ANI and discussions there will have a greater degree of consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Shirahadasha and Raymond arritt. I see no legitimate reason to delete this. It's a very useful tool. The Parsnip! 20:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: There needs to be a place for this type of discussion. In my eyes, WP:ANI isn't the best place for it. Deleting this page would hurt the community, although I believe reform is needed. Specifics of that reform would be explained if the page is kept. .V. _[Talk|Email] 07:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.