Jump to content

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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 result of the debate was , in brief, to close the noticeboard.

The ensuing discussion is strongly leaning against the status quo, and most of the differences between the keep and delete voters have to do with what to do with the page itself after other changes have been made. From the binary keep/delete perspective, this debate is a "keep," as Sjakkalle's point for not deleting the page is the most convincing, and was not successfully contested by anyone. In other words, the page itself and its archives cannot be deleted per se because that would cause problems when referencing existing discussions.

On the other hand, the debate was not purely a keep/delete discussion, but it also had a dimension about what other changes must be done to the page and its concept. The strongest consensus in this portion of the discussion (albeit not unanimous), and the one I'm closing with, is merge role back into Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. That also means, as a result, that I'll tag CSN as {{historical}}, which was implicitly expressed in many "merge" opinions. However, I strongly recommend finding a technical way to maintain CSN's original purpose of documenting bans created by the community in a place separate from AN/I's overwhelming archives. MessedRocker's idea has merit, as well as Jpgordon's, so they should remain under discussion, albeit in a different place. Any implementation of those ideas would not be covered under CSD G4, under my interpretation of the debate, and would actually be very encouraged. (By the way, someone asked what would happen with WP:CEM if the noticeboard is removed; the answer to that is not a thing. CSN's role in that proposed process can be replaced by another page's without incident.)

So, for those who don't want to read the essay I wrote above, here's the CliffsNotes version of my closure: keep, but merge role and functionality back into AN/I, at least temporarily, tag as historical, and maintain the current archives. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 03:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NB. WP:BAN now reads: "If a user has proven to be repeatedly disruptive in a certain area of Wikipedia, the community may engage in a discussion at a relevant noticeboard such as the administrators' noticeboard" Thus WP:AN should be the venue for discussions, not WP:ANI. Carcharoth (talk) 11:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard

[edit]

Nomination

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

The community sanction noticeboard (CSN) was split off from Wikipedia:administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (ANI) in February of this year in response to the imaginary problem of lack of a centralized discussion page for community-related issues. It seemed like a good idea at the time, though, and I was one of the initial supporters of the page. As the page focused in on behavioral sanctions, it was moved to the current name.

Since that point it has, well, deteriorated: some CSN bans are discussed for less than a day; many are assented to with simple "support" votes (no wonder "votes for banning" is a common nickname); discussions have less than a half dozen participants (how this could possibly be construed as consensus for something as major as revoking a user's editing privileges, indefinitely, escapes me); discussions to ban are started by people who are in editwarring with the person they propose the banning of, and this isn't even noted (ANI reports get a lot more research going into them, especially regarding the involvement of the user making the complaint).

This page was first nominated for deletion for much the same reasons in May, and we ended up with a no-consensus close. The closer, Phaedriel, recognized that the page had issues (as did all those in favor of deletion and many of those in favor of keeping), and suggested reform to address these. It was a completely reasonable suggestion, and some reform was attempted, as can be seen in the archives; similar to the Esperanza issue, however, reform-minded discussion largely tapered off, and I don't think there have been any changes. The following issues are present, and are my basis for nominating this for deletion again:

  • Excessive speed in the banning of users. In many cases the end result is the right one, so no harm is done by rushing it. But this is not always the case. Let's not forget that bans proposed in the East Asian and Australian morning and closed by night there miss out on nearly everybody in North America, and vice versa. One amazing example: [1] to [2], or five hours and eleven minutes. I can't possibly be the only who finds that rather unfair to a longtime user, disruptive though he may be.
  • Simple voting is apparent just by scanning the archives, so I won't bother listing diffs. One example is the Ferrylodge ban, particularly this section. Voting is pervasive, and frequently takes the place of discussion.
  • Dialogue is split up, leading to parallel discussions on the same issue. I don't think I have to explain how annoying and useless this practice is. Why can't we just let discussions finish where they started? Examples of pointlessly forked discussions: ANI/CSN, ANI/CSN
  • And finally, many people just won't see the discussions. This page is far less widely watchlisted and even known than ANI. Votes comprise the same users. It isn't a small amount, as there are more than a dozen regulars. But this is nevertheless tiny in comparison to the people who participate in ANI discussions. Banning someone, particularly longtime contributors, should be a decision undertaken by consensus of the community; the community, ironically, does not frequent the "community" noticeboard.

I foresee the following arguments in favor of keep:

  • Reform will work.
    No, it won't. Adjusting the page to deal with the problems has been was tried and failed. The concept of voting on bans is rotten at the core, and slicing a few brown spots off the edges does not make it better. Esperanza couldn't reform, and I'm afraid CSN won't be able to either.
  • The issue is the voters and how they vote, not the page/process itself.
    The distinction is meaningless. As long as this page exists, the same small group of users is going to open discussions, participate in discussions, and close discussions.
  • CSN gives the community more of a say in bans than ANI
    The amount of users who participate in discussions is far smaller than on the incidents noticeboard. The naming is really the problem here - ANI is widely used community process, which dozens of admins and non-admins edit every day. It is recognized as the place to report incidents and discuss how to deal with them. CSN, while nominally a "community" process, has swept discussions to ban out of sight of most of the community. ANI, while nominally for admins, brings in a large variety of people.
  • Moving discussions about bans and paroles back to ANI will crowd it.
    There is less than one vote to ban per day. This is an insignificant amount of discussions in the scheme of things.
  • It isn't a vote; it's a discussion. It even says so in the header!
    The header is inaccurate; just as people ignore the header and make irrelevant commentary on Talk:Main Page, people ignore the header and vote at CSN. There are indeed some real discussions, where consensus is formed. This is reminiscent of how bans were formulated and assented to at AN/I, and how they can be again. And then there are some "discussions" that are as far from a vote as requests for adminship is. Note the periodic Supports and Endorses (often the whole body of someone's comment). Walton, an admin who supports CSN, agrees it is a vote and makes my point for me quite well (albeit from the complete opposite side of the issue)

I do not propose reform; reform was tried and failed. I propose deletion, as the failings of this board are incapable of being rectified. CSN's positive functions can be easily reabsorbed by AN/I, where productive, extended discussion happens frequently, while the voting mentality and speedbanning can be dropped. Resuming these discussions at AN/I will also provide much wider oversight, to ensure discussions remain discussions and to ensure a small group of users do not disproportionately influence the outcome. Thank you for reading through all of that. Picaroon (t) 03:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of clarification, I do not think the people who regularly partake in ban discussions are at fault any more than any other subsection of Wikipedia would be, and I attribute no ill intentions whatsoever to them. I have a tremendous amount of respect for the work Durova and others put into our dispute resolution system, but simply do not think this is a successful part of the system. Picaroon (t) 04:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]
  • Ban - I vote to ban it. WilyD 03:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (anyone else find it ironic that we are *voting* to delete something that is being deleted because its a vote?) It had its chance, potentially useful, potentially expandable, but practice has shown that the potential is unlikely to be realised. ViridaeTalk 03:50, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back to AN/I, per the above cogent arguments. (I said merge because that is what really will occur, and I think the vote should reflect that we wish to reincorporate the purpose and procedure, not delete, or eliminate, the goals and purposes.
    • EDIT ADDENDUM: Also support the separated Archive - can the separated bans archive be a duplication of AN/I conversation in the AN/I archive, thus alowing AN/I archies to stay holistic as well? I'm thinking of cases where two or three reports appear about related incidents, but only one gets the lengthy discussions. Will psot this and other thoughts at Durova's talk as well, for brainstorming. ThuranX 03:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. With respect for this nomination, which is articulate and presented in good faith, the arguments miss the reasons for the board's existence. The total number of registered accounts at this website has increased tenfold in the last two years and Wikipedia needs a scalable and rational way to manage its disruptive editors, not reversion to the ad hoc approach of scattered discussions over two extremely diffuse noticeboards. Community sanctions include remedies that make no automatic note in a block log: topic bans, article bans, revert paroles. This proposal would relegate such decisions to archives where those decisions would be quickly buried and nearly meaningless because they would remain unknown to all but the few individuals who took part in the original discussion. WP:CSN usually works, and for times when it doesn't work there's arbitration. Should something better take its place? Yes, perhaps. Retaining it now creates an archive of coherent data that we can use to plan a rational replacement. For anyone who doubts this line of thought I have a challenge: locate and link to five community ban discussions from the six months before this noticeboard got implemented. Then you're on your honor: tell how long it took you to find them. DurovaCharge! 04:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Changing to neutral. Although many of the arguments against the board are spurious and a far more serious problem exists at the guideline and policy level in that nothing prevents a dispute's partisans from attempting to skew any community sanction discussion (they aren't even formally requested to disclose their involvement), a separate archive would satisfy the most serious of my concerns regarding this proposal. Strongly recommend that the archive include all forms of community sanction proposals and count failed proposals as well as ones that produced a result. This would have the greatest utility as a reference point for future development. DurovaCharge! 05:06, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • So wee keep an archive of community bans as they are enacted - a simple link to their place in the ANI archives would suffice. ViridaeTalk 04:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • But not everyone knows precisely where the discussions are located in the archives until it's too late given how often AN/I gets archived. May I suggest that we keep them in a separate archive linked from the normal noticeboard archives template so as to put them all in one centralized spot instead of scattered throughout buku amounts of archives? -Jéské (v^_^v Kacheek!) 04:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Huh? There were community ban discussions periodically at AN before this board came into existence. The difference was that a ban was something imposed for good reason with wide-scale administrator support, not as a tool in a content dispute. --B 04:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually I proposed this board after quite a bit of experience with those WP:AN and WP:ANI discussions as well as some very timewasting efforts spent locating and citing those discussions afterward. It seemed that lack of organization had mired the process in a very elementary state. If there's a way to accommodate the advantages this board brings while rolling the discussions back to the administrative boards, then I'd have no objection. DurovaCharge! 04:47, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Messedrocker solution, much like what happened to Esperanza and BJAODN. The nomination has summed up my reasons better than I could. AN/I should also be used for quick incidents, and AN for longer complex processes that require more oversight, such as community bans. east.718 at 05:58, 10/8/2007
  • Archive I was once one of the strongest supporters of this board. However, increasingly, we've seen cases brought here involving people that no admin in his or her right mind would ever consider unblocking. I'm of the mind that we're better served moving to AN and ANI. There is also far too much confusion over whether a user is banned or simply indefblocked (an outstanding example was User:Lyle123) and this board doesn't seem to help the cause. Blueboy96 04:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The process may need to be improved (though the cases I've seen so far have either achieved the correct outcome, or have been overly lenient to the subject user). But merging it in with ANI isn't the answer. Community sanctions are a serious matter and deserve focused attention rather than getting buried amidst the usual image disputes, bias accusations, and the like that bulk up ANI. Raymond Arritt 04:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or retire - it's nothing but a lynchmob. I rarely pay attention to it, but I have seen one good faith contributor get lynched there because his/her views disagreed with some of the more vocal members of a particular topic area. AN, ANI, and the arbitration committee are much better equipped to handle anything that rises above the level of sour grapes. --B 04:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is time for this board to go the way of WP:PAIN. I'm tempted to simply repeat my comments from the last MfD, which resulted in no consensus for CSN, and showed many people unhappy with CSN, and several necessary changes pointed out by Phaedriel. Instead, it seems to have gotten worse; the editors that tried to make changes after the MfD was closed were vehemently opposed by that small group of editors that seems to support it, and nothing got done. Today, we have the same problems: excessive and self-perpetuating bureaucracy, voting on bans, and by extension, reinforcing misconceptions about what a ban means, providing a platform for factionalizing editors to nominate adversaries for banning instead of resolving conflicts, and being sustained by a small core of editors (occasionally joined by partisans in any particular debate), who in no way represent the community or consensus. Delete in favor of ANI and the community process we had before CSN. Dmcdevit·t 04:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge functionality into AN/I or AN. AN/I works perfectly fine. Create a separate archive stream so we can actually find the ban decisions when we need to enforce them. More eyeballs are good. Discussion that don't end in a ban can be archived in the usual way. The few discussions that turn into bans can be flagged and archived in a separate place to facilitate enforcement. We can create distinct discussion top templates that tell the bot where to archive each case. This feature could be used to create a compact archive of ban discussions. (Dual Archive Solution) - Jehochman Talk 04:59, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If someone is banned at ANI, CN, or anywhere else, I would think that a diff could easily be logged at Wikipedia:List of banned users, without needing a special archive. --B 05:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's far from complete, B. Sitebans already show up as indef blocks in an editor's block log. The challenge is to record milder sanctions which, if successful, could prevent the need for sitebanning. A related challenge is to keep track of the proposals that don't result in a remedy being enacted because that's the data that helps the community develop better responses. Ideally we should be more proactive about revert paroles or article bans rather than waiting for situations to degenerate so badly that good editors quit and problem editors need sitebanning. DurovaCharge! 05:37, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The way this originally was set up, IIRC, was that the noticeboard was a place to RECORD that a community ban, probation, or restriction had been enacted, somewhere that was more permanent than AN/I, so that it could be referenced for weeks or months instead of just a day. That seems valuable. I DO think that just recording stuff of any permanence, (failing a bot that produces reliable indexes) on AN/I, is broken. It is too hard to find again later... I missed why CSN transmogrified into a place to DISCUSS whether a ban should happen or not. I participated in some of those, because that's where the action was, but I didn't like it. I think AN/I is a perfectly fine place to discuss. Move this page back to being a simple, discussion free place to record the bans. If that requires deleting or whatever, followed by recreation, fine, I don't care how it gets done but that's what I think should happen. Thanks, Picaroon, for starting this. ++Lar: t/c 12:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Section break 1

[edit]
  • Delete. Good idea in theory, horrible in practice, and utterly unfixable. Picaroon's nomination pretty much explains it all. --krimpet⟲ 05:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ec) I seem to recall that the initial discussions about this noticeboard were held on AN and ANI, where a lot of folks were concerned about the discussions regarding community bans being too long or too frequent and clogging up the noticeboards. I watch and occasionally participate on CSN, and feel it would be better if more of the community took part in the discussions there; it's much like many other pages, where a core group of editors participate in the discussions. Fact is, no matter where a community ban discussion comes up, it's going to cause controversy; there will always be someone who decides to ask for a community ban on someone because they're in a dispute, or someone asking for a ban when they're better off pursuing other dispute resolution first - CSN is, at present, a place where those issues can be handled without adding more traffic to the already-busy admin boards while also dealing with deliberate community discussions about problem editors who really do need the community's concern. But, as these complaints about CSN keep coming up, might as well try to merge the function back to ANI and hope it sticks. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge functionality back into ANI. FCYTravis 06:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or make historical, and merge functionality to AN/I. The nom has explained the rationale far better than I'd aspire to. --Bfigura (talk) 06:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nom makes a good point. WP:AN/I would be the better way about going through this process. Yahel Guhan 06:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The bolding support ban, oppose ban etc. that goes on there makes me cringe. I don't think that sort of thing is helpful when discussing whether to ban a user. Whether it is a vote for banning or not, it certainly gives the appearance that it is. That kind of thing could get out of hand easily. daveh4h 06:47, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. My initial qualms still stand.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete or retire. These types of boards become harmful because they are abused in attempts to shut down an opponent circumventing the normal DR route and, additionally, though attracting the wrong type of users that tend to be overrepresented at such out of sight pages. Boards like WP:PAIN and WP:RFI, now both happily retired to much relief, get too much attention from trolls, their friends (and socks) and the users of the ass-kicking type and wannabe judges who did not or cannot make it to a real ArbCom. While certainly not all of these boards' regulars are of this type, this overrepresentation of sword-wielding Wikipedians leads to sanctions applied more arbitrary than when the problem is exposed to a wider audience at ANI or to a thorough investigation by ArbCom. PAIN, RFI, this board and yet alive WP:WQA all suffer from the same problem, their being misused for the Wikipedia:Request to block may succeed due to their being out of sight. If it so happens that WP:ANI gets the widest attention and attendance of all boards with related issues, WP:ANI should handle it, even if the attendance there is highest for purely historic reasons. --Irpen 07:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC) P.S. I just realized that my comments at PAIN MfD and RFI MfD were along the same lines. Must be not a coincidence --Irpen 07:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • By that logic we ought to delete WP:AN and WP:ANI also, since they see exploitive attempts just about as frequently. People who set out to game the system target any available venue. It isn't the attempts themselves that argue against a board's worth, but whether they succeed. DurovaCharge! 07:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • AN and AN/I are also quite visible and highly frequented, unlike CSN. Attempts to abuse the system there are usually seen through quickly. east.718 at 07:46, October 6, 2007
        • On the other hand, high traffic noticeboards have a short memory: individuals who repeatedly try the same exploitive methods become more difficult to identify because they blend into the crowd, while a smaller targeted board can serve as an excellent honeypot. Another downside of high traffic/low focus is a larger percentage of casual browsers who fall for disruptive ploys. Theoretical arguments can be advanced either way; the proof is in the pudding. DurovaCharge! 07:56, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • The proof is in the pudding, and what CSN has turned out to be is a rather good argument against it. In what way does saying "AN is just as bad" argue for keeping CSN? (*ahem*) Sure, a partisan can shop their complaint anywhere, but ANI is not a noticeboard set up to specifically invite and entertain those disruptive ploys. Dmcdevit·t 08:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • See above: I've voted neutral, not keep. The particular argument advanced in this vote is flawed. WP:XYZ is a troll magnet! Off with its head! overlooks the nature of noticeboards - they're all troll magnets. Since the argument is applied selectively, this becomes a special case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. DurovaCharge! 07:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • To answer Durova, yes AN and ANI are exploited by unethical users too and yes they are also overattended by users, admins or not, who are here not to write content but to self-fulfill. Same can be said about ArbCom pages. Frivolous cases are submitted and there are users who unhelpfully join many ArbCom cases with their too cruel but self-fulfilling opinions. "Coincidentally" those are also users who don't write articles. You are right, no system is perfect, abuse will always be attempted and we have seen some pretty bad verdicts of "ANI court" and even of the ArbCom. But their wider attendance (especially ANI) and more thorough investigations (some Arbs do take their responsibilities very seriously) ensures that out of the blue verdicts are less likely. There always will be attempts to circumvent the system. Most obvious ones will remain, selective contacting an admin through a talk page or, even worse, email, IM or {worst) IRC where pretty bad violence will continue until ArbCom finally realizes that it got to do something about that. But nuking the venues that we can nuke should be done whenever possible. --Irpen 18:15, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shut it down I don't mind how but its time to close this down. The board has too limited an audience for matters as serious as community bans and discussions tend to be dominated by the editor being discussed opponants. Spartaz Humbug! 07:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seems like a walled garden to me. Best to deal with troublemakers in one place. Lurker (said · done) 10:02, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to ANI, keep old archives separate (and potentially new keep new bans archived separately, if that's workable). This was a good idea to try out, but it hasn't worked. — Gavia immer (talk) 13:35, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Shut Down per the well-stated nom and my previous nomination for deletion. My nomination was made soon after the board opened, and before the name changed. Very little else has changed beside the name. WP:CSN is still the wiki lynch mob it was when it started. IronGargoyle 14:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete whatever this obscure thing is. (SEWilco 15:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep - I am not an admin, and my sole involvement on the noticeboard was as one of the "lynch mobs" out to remove a given editor from continuing to post disruptive edits on a given page. That editor is currently banned indefinitely, and even one of our most respected editors has informed the editor in question that there would be no purpose for any discussion of reinstatement until the end of the year, given the problematic user's conduct. Having said that, I can and do think that there is a purpose to having a centralized location where such matters can be discussed, and which seems to be primarily about such discussion. I am profoundly grateful to Durova and the others for performing the often thankless and unpleasant tasks involved in the process. I believe that it would work more effectively if more individuals were involved more often. The same, of course, can be said about anything else here as well. That is not necessarily grounds for removal, however. Perhaps if the page were directly linked to from the community portal, or maybe included in the Signpost, there would be greater involvement. Maybe standardizing the process, like admin requests, would be effective as well. But none of this is necessarily enough in my eyes to request that the separate page be necessarily shut down. John Carter 15:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Delete - Coming out of semi-retirement for this one. The damn things no more then a thinly disguised Votes for Banning. As someone who used it and participated in it, it's simply an abomination. A community ban is a very serious act, and not something to be tossed around like it was on this board. It perverts the process of blocking/banning on wiki, turning us into no more then a semi-organized lynch mob by people involved in editing disputes with one another. It should be archived, a explanation of why it failed, so we don't end up repeating history again, and it's functions returned to ANI. -Mask? 16:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge into WP:AN/I. The need for this board is undeniable, if a better, more suitable home for these discussions is WP:AN/I, let's conduct these there. I would not support a dilution of enforcement against trolls, disruptive, and tendentious editors that waste everybody's time. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do something else. The concept is a good one, and if there was the same amount of participation there as here on AN/I, then the visibility issue, which I think is the most important one, would go away. We can have the best of both worlds, though. Let each entry be a transclusion, which can be transcluded both at AN/I and CSN. Then we'll have the discussions nicely pigeonholed at CSN land, and we'll also get the visibility of AN/I. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is there any reason not to use a case management system like we have at WP:RfA or WP:SSP? Complex cases could be kept on their own subpages, and transcluded into ANI while active, and un-transcluded when closed. The list of banned users could then link to the relevant case subpage. - Jehochman Talk 19:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What's going to happen to community enforceable mediation? I'm assuming it gets deep-sixed along with CSN. east.718 at 18:10, October 6, 2007
  • Delete and barnstar the nominator. Summaries like his make are always lauded in the case of a revolutionary change.--WaltCip 18:42, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Should have worked in theory but the lack of attention compared to ANI is a problem. Compared to many of the petty disputes that are brought to ANI the cases discussed on this board neeed more attention, not less attention by being put aside on a separate page that far fewer people tend to watchlist. Also, I'm concerned about CSN becoming a substitute for ArbCom, especially when it comes to topic bans which as far as I recall used to be something that only ArbCom could impose. Jpgordon's idea could possibly work. EconomicsGuy Return the fire! 19:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge -- Mark historical and shift function to AN/I. To explain my reasoning, AN/I gets much more attention; right now, a group of people could get someone that they disliked blocked without too much attention or raised eyebrows. That would be much more difficult on AN/I. Also, as EconomicsGuy said, CSN is watched a lot less, and is starting to become a substitute for ArbCom. Neranei (talk) 19:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back to AN(I). Better to have one or 2 routes for issues needing admin/experienced editor attention, that get many eyeballs, than a large number of routes some of which may not be noticed or become cliques and sidewaters. On something like ban proposals a wide range of views is important. Also, underrated 2nd reason: if a function is split off to a specialist board, the community runs the risk of discussion becoming dominated (in good faith) by a static decision-making group of regulars, who have great influence and common views on the decisions, and this group will become the decision makers on many bans.
Even though this may be done in good faith, and may work well usually, I distrust the risk of creating a clique. I think a guarantee of wider viewing and less self-selection in the discussions individuals will be presented with on visiting the page, is probably a Good Thing. This way every discussion -- ban, block, sanction, dispute -- that ends up for admin/experienced editor discussion, is at least presented for viewing by a broad representation of the community rather than some minor subgroup. For some issues thats not important. For potential bans, I think it may be. FT2 (Talk | email) 21:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Yes, there are problems with voting on things like this. But what else are we going to do? The only other decision making method we have is consensus, and there neither is nor ever was an objective, non-circular definition for that. "This is consensus because I say it is" is far worse than any form of voting. By the way, may I remind everyone that Arbcom uses nothing but voting to make decisions? That's no less "votes for banning". -Amarkov moo! 21:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Arbcom isn't "nothing but voting". There is discussion between arbcom members which you don't see, before anything is publicly written, and routinely, a number of proposals are written (and often new ones added) until a proposal that eventually meets as wide a consensus as can be obtained is met. The difference between consensus and voting is, a proposal will be discarded if unpopular amongst arb' members, and also the minority on a proposal (if any) are willing as a rule to concur with a good decision, rather than stand as "winners" and "losers" in some "vote". All views are heard and a decision reached that usually, all can live with. As a result of these plus collaborative approaches, an unusually large proportion of arb' proposed statements are in fact unanimous. FT2 (Talk | email) 21:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, you have a point. But that process clearly won't work for the community as a whole. So do we have a better idea, or are we just going to remove voting and hope it doesn't become WP:Decisions to ban because the only admin who sees it doesn't like you? -Amarkov moo! 22:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep history. I have no opinion as to whether CSN should be kept or reabsorbed into AN/I but I do think that the archives should be retained so that past banning discussions can still be linked to and referenced in case the same user ever comes up again. Eluchil404 22:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As others have said, this board is little more than a lynching mechanism. While the consensus thing is a good idea, it never really works for these sorts of issues. Think about it. This is the Wikipedia equivient of sending someone to prison, removing them from society. In the real world, removing someone from society is not done by a common vote of the people, it's done in a very strict process, with a very high threshold for conviction, and decided upon by people who are impartial and well informed of the facts. It's very hard to do this, but it helps to avoid mistakes. If a community ban process in this fashion could be devised, I'd be in favor. But this "voting people off the island" idea...it's just wrong. --UsaSatsui 23:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You do realize that community bans will still happen if this is deleted? They just won't happen in this particular forum; in fact, some people who want this deleted are actively advocating community ban discussions somewhere else. -Amarkov moo! 00:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Absolutely. I don't really -like- the idea of community bans, but I can accept them. At least before, there was better oversight. That's what really worries me about this system. --UsaSatsui 00:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • How was there better oversight, though? A given discussion is much more likely to be seen in pages 10 sections long than pages 200 sections long, and it's not like only a small group of people see CSN. -Amarkov moo! 00:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • It is (a small number of people) and that precisely is a problem magnified that the "wrong type" tends to get overrepresented within this small number, see my vote above for details. --Irpen 00:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Not quite what I meant, but I agree with it. What I meant is that on AN/I, there are a large number of administrators around. I trust admins with these types of decisions rather than non-admins, since they've been placed by the community into a position of trust. AN/I also has more visibility, which helps prevent "railroading" of upopular people. As I said before, though, I'd like to see a process that leaves no doubt this user is not wanted by anyone, and for good reason. --UsaSatsui 00:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back into AN/I, but keep the good. I have to agree with User:Raymond arritt's earlier comment - the outcomes I've seen have been either very reasonable or even lenient, not "lynchings". That said, the board just hasn't acquired a broad enough range of regulars to carry the credibility that it needs. It has had some good effects, though - I've seen (and even proposed) limited sanctions like topic bans or probationary periods which are useful alternatives to all-out bans for problematic but potentially salvageable editors. I'd like to see the community continue to consider and impose these kinds of remedies, but it probably makes more sense to take it back to AN/I at this point - the argument about the number of participants and visibility of discussions is pretty compelling. MastCell Talk 00:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Section break 2

[edit]
  • Delete. Too long have we allowed this board —promoted by the few, and typically involving highly parochial participation— to impose its own brand of vigilante justice. Although belated, I am encouraged that virtually everyone here can now see through CSN's populist hyperbole. El_C 01:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Hurrah! To the barricades! In all seriousness, the CSN board has always been open to participation by any and all users. Yes, participation and visibility have been limited, which is a good reason to fold this back into AN/I and delete CSN. But using inflammatory rhetoric to imply that CSN is some sort of private vigilante forum undercuts your credibility. If anything, it's an attempt to have these discussions in a more transparent environment, one which anyone can watch or participate in. MastCell Talk 00:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've been watching, and occasionally actioning, the discussion on the board for a few months. Origionally I thought that what was needed was a re-write of the header, to clarify the process for implementing a ban. But several cases have shown that the process is far too easy to skew. Far more sysop scrutiny is needed, and AN/I is the place for this. The history does need to be kept, though, for obvious reasons. Banno 01:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Through most of the arguments to delete, the common assumption is that ANI provides better oversight than this board does. However, to my knowledge, CSN usually has around seven sections, while ANI hasn't had less than fifty for at least as long as I've been here. Yes, there are more people who watch ANI right now, but how many of them will actually see section 37.2 to comment on a proposed ban? -Amarkov moo! 03:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Every section that remains for the full two or three days until archival is seen by dozens of people - whether they're going to do anything is another matter. However, in the case of community bans, consensus is necessary to ban. Edits, a good deal of them, are necessary for consensus to form. Not many people edit the whole page at once, so each time someone edits the relevant section, the page will shoot to the top of hundreds of watchlists again, and the section name is right there and clickable. How many people are going to see the same section name a half-dozen times without clicking on it? (Well, a good deal, but plenty will click it nonetheless.) At worst, a proposal doesn't see many comments. So, no one is banned. They can't have been that bad, in that case. Picaroon (t) 04:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't claim ANI is inherently worse than CSN about wide exposure. But if it's not better, what's the point? We can't put everything into ANI to give it wider community exposure, or it will simply become too big. -Amarkov moo! 21:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. With all its flaws, WP:CSN is necessary; a way must be found to alleviate the flaws rather than throwing out the baby with the bathwater. ΔιγυρενΕμπροσ! 06:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Return functions to ANI or possibly AN much as others have said. CSN has proven too little-watched to really be an effective judge of community consensus. Also, having a board specifically devoted to community bans seems to egg people on into proposing them (often ridiculously prematurely). Discussion about things like this needs to continue to happen, obviously, but I think this board is not the place to do it. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm just not sure where to start. The board was created to shift discussions that were occurring on two places, to one centralized place. Regardless of whether CSN is operating or not, these discussion will continue. An archive needs to be kept, and clueful editors and admins need to close discussion that were meant to rope folks in. The ArbCom has already recoginized the ability of the community here, and with only 851 administrators and a heck of a lot more editors(read: 5,511,500 registered user accounts ), the community is going to have to help with the tendentious editing and disruptive editors. Folks, let us not shoot ourselvs in the foot by removing the tools that we have now. Regards, Mercury 15:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What part was too long, and did you not read? Mercury 18:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm... I am undecided. On one hand, I agree with the sentiments of those who wish for this page to either be deleted/merged/whatever. On the other hand, I think that we should be giving much more support to editors such as Durova and Jehochman who dive head-first into dispute resolution. If they feel that they need a specific page with which to centralise dispute resolution discussions, then I think we should support that. So, at any rate, I don't feel like commenting bold, because I am undecided, but I would hope that others would consider that this page does not represent one view of a dichotomy between two views, but rather a view on a continuum between two views. In my brief overview of the discussion, it seemed unfortunately polarised. --Iamunknown 18:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think most contributors appreciate the idea behind CSN. The problem has been that either Wikipedians are a lazy group of people which the 2 million article count would seem to refute pretty convincingly or people simply aren't updating their watchlists. I think Jpgordon's idea represents a comprimise that seeks to unite rather than polarize. At least it couldn't hurt to try and I'm sure that those devoted to dispute resolution wouldn't mind the extra attention. Jehochman's apparent support for the proposal seems to support that view so why not give it a try? EconomicsGuy Return the fire! 19:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. CSN is, in principle, one of the best processes on Wikipedia. It strengthens the decision-making role of the community; I would far rather have the community banning users, through an open and fair discussion in which the user can present their side of the argument, than have users banned through edicts from the ArbCom or Jimbo Wales. Where reasonably possible, all decisions of importance on Wikipedia should be made collectively by the community; this page assists that. Yes, there are problems with the page, but that's because human beings are imperfect. Yes, pages which invite community discussion often turn into slanging matches; that's human nature. But I prefer that to being ruled by a small group of élite users, which would be the consequence of reducing community control. WaltonOne 20:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as probably the worst process on wikipedia and weakems the arbcom which is the proper place for these issues to be dealt with, SqueakBox 21:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Arbcom exists to resolve disputes that the community can't deal with on its own; it's not meant to have sole power over things the community could deal with. And anyway, as I've explained above, deleting this board would do nothing but cause community bans to revert back to being discussed on ANI. -Amarkov moo! 22:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. I agree with Walton--CSN is one of the best ways on Wikipedia for dealing with editors whose problems can not be handled by ArbCom, which is the last resort when the community can't deal with an issue. If this page is deleted, you will have more admins and editors taking part in scattered discussions on ANI and other places on whether to ban a user; better to have these discussions in one place. I have seen no major problems with CSN being abused and see CSN filling a needed role. But if the consensus is to do away with this page, it would be better to officially fold it into AN/I (although I have yet to hear a real reason why having adiscussion on a community ban at AN/I is better than at CSN).--Alabamaboy 00:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This page is widely neglected, seldom suggests anything that couldn't be discussed on ANI, and has acquired a bad reputation in its brief existence. Focussing on banning (and despite the change of name the focus has remained) is not good. Nearly every time I visit the page I find at least one nomination of a user who has never even been blocked, which suggests to me that the page has attracted the kind of activity that would best not be empowered. Let's just merge the function of this page back to ANI. That is to say: delete. --Tony Sidaway 03:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Action! Delete - Tends to attract lynchmobs. Lynchmobs aren't that great. A better name for this page is "Votes for banning". Wikipedia is too good for this lynchboard. MessedRocker (talk) 03:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, an immensely valuable tool for community decision making as opposed to individual admin or ArbCom fiat. Everyking 04:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do something else. per jpgordon. I like that idea and I think it addresses the concerns people have about CSN not having enough eyes on it. Other than that, I don't really see the objections to CSN as having much validity. No one seems to be able to point to a case of an innocent being "lynched". OTOH, there's a great need of anything which will help the community deal with disruption amongst it's volunteers when there are very few admins per user, and the project is so large and getting larger. <<-armon->> 04:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Try something else not super effective, but certainly better than overloading WP:ANI or the Arbcom though... i'm hoping a decent 3rd option will be presented here.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 04:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I like the suggestion that ANI should be used for quick "this guy's evading a block, yada yada" sort of stuff, and AN be used for more complex cases that require more oversight. east.718 at 05:52, 10/8/2007
      • The thing is though... ANI is overloaded because people keep posting their petty disputes and content disputes that don't belong there to begin with. AN is for more general discussion. That's why CSN should have worked in theory. If we transcluded each CSN case on ANI or found another similar solution along the lines of Jpgordon's proposal CSN would attract more attention. EconomicsGuy Return the fire! 06:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • If it's overloaded, just direct petty fights and content disputes away by contacting the people involved on their talk pages, and archive aggressively. We don't put up with frivolous nominations at RfA or disruptive RfCs for long, why should we do so here? east.718 at 06:34, 10/8/2007
          • I wholeheartedly agree with you, especially about the agressive archiving which is already done on boards like AIV. I know that we should be welcoming and kindly respond to new users when they post their complaint in the wrong place but many of these threads are created by established users who continue to be unable to settle their disputes themselves (which has always been the preffered way). Sorry if I'm moving off-topic here but the main argument against merging seems to be that ANI is already too busy - so let's do something about that while we are at it. EconomicsGuy Return the fire! 06:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yeah, I feel what you're saying. Although I disagree about AIV being aggressively archived; it's more like "rip kill maim relegate to the abyss" there. east.718 at 07:00, 10/8/2007
  • I'm thinking of something. Give me some time. MessedRocker (talk) 05:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete My lone interaction with this board was in the Ferrylodge case discussed above, in which I simply mentioned that I thought it was probably a good idea to allow more than 24 hours of discussion before issuing community bans. I had never had any encounters with the editor in question (unlike the majority of the participants in that particular discussion, it would seem), so I would have appreciated a bit of time to review his contributions before entering the conversation. I was told that this was a WP:SNOW situation anyway, so it wouldn't much matter. This gave me a rather bad impression of the process engendered by this noticeboard, which has been reinforced by the delete votes above. JavaTenor 06:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The thing is supposed to be for the community, but it never has been. A small group of people can get together and "ban" someone for good, with little say from the community-at-large. A high-tech lynching. Speedy Delete #G4 Recreated material: Wikipedia:Quickpolls. But seriously, it is a travesty and needs to be dissolved back into ANI (etc.). Mahalo. --Ali'i 13:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • QP was deleted where?Mercury 13:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Obviously missed the point I was trying to make. No, Quickpolls (the page) was not formally deleted, but the process was abandoned (deleted in spirit) because of many of the same reasons presented here. It was declared inactive, and is kept for historical purposes. The speedy delete comment was more of a joke (hence the "But seriously" above). HTH HAND. --Ali'i 13:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Sorry to pick on you (you posted after me) but are you saying that CSN could be used for a "A high-tech lynching" or that it has been used as such. If so, can you give us the example(s)? <<-armon->> 14:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Not a problem... I don't feel you're picking on me at all. I think in some cases, it has become a high-tech lynching. For instance, the Ferrylodge example (cited elsewhere). But I'm not going to re-argue that entire case here. Mahalo, Armon. --Ali'i 14:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Kia ora, Ali'i. OK, I've read over that Ferrylodge example. I think there were two salient points which were evident. One, the guy wasn't "innocent" (I think everyone accepted he was disruptive, though there was some dispute about whether he'd completely exhausted the communities patience) and two, the people opposing his ban were mostly opposing the process leading to it (as being too quick, not enough outside input, etc.). Is that a fair summary of the debate? <<-armon->> 00:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What's the alternative that's supposed to be for the community? Isn't this line of reasoning sort of like saying elections should be abolished because they're insufficiently democratic? If it's flawed, let's find a way to improve it. (And Quickpolls were not nearly as bad an idea as they're made out to be.) Everyking 04:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Try Something Else/Tag Historical per Alkivar (talk · contribs). WP:CSN isn't perfect, but the idea that the sorts of discussions that happen there should happen at WP:ANI/WP:AN is a bit silly in my opinion. ANI is busy as is; trying to make it a catch-all "one stop shop" for longer/complex discussions about what to do with "problem editors" just isn't really workable in my opinion (and I include some of the current discussions that happen at ANI in this assessment). AN is less busy, but still not the best place for this. In my opinion at least, either keep CSN separate or do away with the concept of "community banning" as a discussed "!voted" thing and simply consider a community ban a block in effect that no other admin will undo (which of course can be discussed at ANI). Anything more complex can go to ARBCOM.--Isotope23 talk 13:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace with Wikipedia:Community ban discussions - I came up with this system (with the help of Alkivar) to help address the existing issues with WP:CSN. MessedRocker (talk) 15:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I very much support the idea of having a discussion about where to go in the future with the community ban process. It's pretty obvious from both MfD discussions that the current WP:CSN system needs an overhaul. That said, I think the WP:ANI based proposals advanced here are not really workable. Having MessedRocker's/Alkivar's proposal page will allow some discussion of what should be done in the future, which is really outside of the scope of an MfD. I've added "tag historical" to my original !vote as in my mind, tagging WP:CSN historical would be workable too while the proposal is discussed.--Isotope23 talk 17:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - If we do decide to do away with this useful item, can we make explicit in the directions/introcuction to the Administrators noticeboard and the /incidents noticeboard that for banning discussions participation by all is requested. I do think that the policy/guideline started by Messedrocker and Alkivar should be fleshed out, discussed, and impletmented. --Rocksanddirt 16:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • implement jpgordons idea - after thinking on it a bit, make the AN/I and CSN pages into the sort like Afd where they are automatically tracked and transcluded to the notice boards. Then they can also be indexed and archived in a more easily findable way. --Rocksanddirt 16:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or implement some new sort of community-based lynch mob ala jpgordon's idea. Burntsauce 17:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but reform Have a look at these suggestions:
  1. Rename it to Wikipedia:Community issues noticeboard - not the same thing as Wikipedia:Village pump - with the emphasis on community issues, not sanctions.
  2. If banning is to be discussed, people should not use votes, but rather rational discussion.
  3. WP:ANI is doing a good job so far, no complaints there.

These are just my ideas, you may not agree with them all but they could be implemented if there is consensus. --Solumeiras talk 21:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Has produced some positive outcomes; there are problems to be addressed but there's no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. csloat 22:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or (preferably) merge back into AN/I per well-reasoned nom. Obviously this isn't working out if we're talking about it again here at MFD. Things were fine when AN/I and/or AN had this functionality; a separate noticeboard wasn't needed. I would lean toward merging since it may be a good idea to keep the history here; what if a community-banned user notices that CSN is gone? We'd want to keep the discussion around since deleting outright could possibly lead said users to try to claim that they were banned without discussion. Then again, this is unlikely, which is why I have no problem with deletion. --Coredesat 06:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. First off, this is the only record we have of discussions leading up to some of the community bans. If discussion on an ArbCom workshop or ANI thread turned nasty, we would still archive it, and do not delete it. Unpleasant as the discussion may be, discussion which concerns the banning of somebody must stay in order to maintain openness, and to have something to point to when someone questions the ban. Outright deletion is not a viable option. Now, on the issue of shutting down this noticeboard, I really don't understand what is going to improve if we send such threads to ANI instead of CSN. What is it that will make the banning threads at ANI more pleasant than here? If we want to abandon unpleasant community ban discussions, we might as well abandon community bans. By keeping this at a separate page we make it clear that community bans are really by the community, not merely a community of administrators. The problem of bans being decided too quickly is not CSN's fault, it is the blocking admin's fault. The problem of discussions forking between ANI and CSN can be resolved by quickly moving forked discussion threads to the proper noticeboard, leaving a note behind as to where the discussion is. CSN is clearly a page with problems, the concerns in the nomination are correct observations, but shutting this down is not going to solve the problems, just move them to somewhere else. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Far better to have these on a separate page than on AN/I. AN/I is a cesspit where serious consideration is almost always omitted. The problem with excessive speed will be made worse at ANI, not better. A good CSN discussion should last a few days, minimum. Very few ANI discussions last more than 24 hours. Yes, we need cultural norms to prevent early closures and separate the opinions of those with strong bias from outside opinions. Those can be solved with layout items. Templated transclusion might be an improvement, maybe with sections of "proposals", "relevant evidence" (including exculpatory), "opinions of disputants" (including topical regulars - ie. all pro-anti X editors for a dispute in area X, "opinions of outsiders". Frankly, if I were going to suggest a page be deleted, it would be AN/I - it is only suitable as a place for flagging issues for attention, not for actual discussions. GRBerry 15:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Archive this lynchmob, support jpgordon's idea Arbeit Sockenpuppe 16:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The CSN was set up with specific goals in mind, and it has spectacularly failed all of those goals. Bans should be discussed on ANI. Pablo Talk | Contributions 19:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Historify and Merge to AN/I: Seemed like something notable to keep as historical. Bushcarrot Talk Please Sign! Let's go Lightning! 20:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It is clear from the discussion above that there is a great deal of concern about the way the board functions. The previous deletion discussion did not reach a consensus. It is essential that a board of this nature have overwhelming community support. Since that is clearly not the case, the noticeboard should be closed. Banno 20:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find jpgordon's idea to be the most supportable -- it should get a trial run to see if it alleviates the general concerns presented (which it appears to largely address). I agree that excessive speed in implementing a ban is to be avoided. — Scientizzle 04:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transclude onto the admin noticeboard - also could transclude onto ANI, but this is often overly long anyway. Otherwise reform, stipulate a minimum length of discussion (48 hours?) and clarify remit - shouldn't 'overrule' ArbCom. Addhoc 13:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Agree with others that outright deletion is not a viable option. ANI is way too busy to move discussion there and moving it to AN would just shift the burden. Instead a discussion on deletion, what's needed is a discussion on how to improve CSN. Chaz Beckett 14:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I find merit to jpgordon's idea, though I'm still somewhat troubled by having these discussions separated out from other issues requiring administrator attention. The whole problem here is that we are treating people like articles and we're AFD'ing people. I think the old style community bans are far better - if no admin is willing to unblock the user, they are banned. If any admin is willing to unblock, the issue ought to go to arbcom. That's the only way to stop the tyranny of the loudest shouter from determining who gets banned. --B 14:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) *Keep and/or jpgordon's idea - or maybe both. I do think B has a point though. CSN became a ban endorsing board because the rules governing it (ie WP:BAN) and (WP:DE) are not 'tight' enough. I think we should keep the CSN history but transform it into a transcluded noticebaord like jpgordan suggests - however I think we should have a serious look at restructing the way cases are brought and how the board is used - somthing along the RFC/U format for discussion would be a help, but for me the biggest issue (visibility) could be easily resolved by making it mandatory that an admin support a case's referal to CSN - when/if that happens then the admin should make a short post to WP:ANI. There is a precident for this where Arbcom makes a short post indicating the closure of cases to CSN--Cailil talk 15:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Section break 3

[edit]
  • The arguments for keeping CSN functioning are exactly as I predicted. I remind you that we already tried reform once, and it didn't work. To quote W. C. Fields, "If at first you don't succeed, try again. Then quit. There's no need to be a damn fool about it." Sjakkele brings up a good point, however, that we need to retain the page history so people can find the discussions in the future. So, marking inactive, keeping the archives, and directing future concerns to AN/I seems best. (I note that I'm not calling anyone "damn fools," just criticizing the "keep-on-driving-the-car-into-the-wall-until-it-gets-through" line-of-thought.) Picaroon (t) 15:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close/archive, do not delete. Useless venue for lynch-mobbing, wikilawyering, gaming, block-shopping and hysteria. I didn't think it was a good idea when it started, and it really has not been a success. Needs to be archived for informational purposes, though (in case people need to see why someone was "Blocked per CSN discussion" or somesuch). Neil ム 15:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Something Else per jpgordon. The process need to be fixed, perhaps recreated from the beginning, but the simple answer of just deleting it and forgetting it foregoes the opportunity for a useful tool. CitiCat ♫ 17:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back to AN/I, keep archives. This was a horrible idea from the start. If AN/I is seen as cliquish, then we need to re-word the page and make it clear that non-admins can comment. Ral315 » 17:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep archives, remove functionality Users previously banned via the CN remain banned (obviously), all open discussions are allowed to close, and give the functionality to AN or ANI. This is grossly unacceptable. I had no problem with the CN before, but turning it into a "vote on editors for banning" is extremely wrong. Kwsn(Ni!) 17:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge back to AN/I. My comments on the first MfD still represent my beliefs today. CDN is too insular, and low-visibility for such a sensitive and important topic. I'd rather see the discussions on AN/I, where the culture isn't geared towards banning people per se. (JPGordon's idea isn't unreasonable, either). --InkSplotch 18:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that the culture of AN/I isn't geared towards banning people. That is where people go to request banning/blocking of thier enemies, and there are ordinarily a number of sections that are "I've indef blocked this awful user, please tell me I was right." If the problems of CSN cannot be fixed ever (according to the Nom), then we need to get over this idea that the community runs the show, and get back to the "truth" that the admin "cabal" does. --Rocksanddirt 18:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The culture of AN/I is geared towards many things, but if I had to pick one word it wouldn't be "banning" (it'd probably be "drama"). AN/I is where people go to get action to occur, and for the most part I think it's for the betterment of keeping the project running. What concerns me more are places like Requests for Adminship or Articles for Deletion. Places like that develop very insular cultures, and there are many folks in both spots who focus on very little else in the encyclopedia. The utility of this has been hotly debated even in those areas, I shudder to think of such a culture forming around CSN (and I fear it's every so slowly beginning). You throw around words like "truth" and "cabal" in quotes like they're some dark secret...but the word you're mistaken on is "admin". It's not admins who run the show, or any technical classification like admin, bureaucrat, or steward. It's the people that know, know how "these things work" that run things. RFA is full of them, AFD, is too...let's not let CSN do the same. --InkSplotch 21:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The issues with WP:CSN cited are not conclusion or compelling, and ignore the obvious benefits to the community. Odd nature 18:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I really don't think that CSN is worth the trouble and problems that it has. ANI can handle need of banning/blocking/etc. People that saying that it should be kept and reformed should note that this was suggested back in December. Unfortunately, I think it just has to be deleted. Captain panda 20:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Community_sanction_noticeboard_(second_nomination)&oldid=1167444399"