Misplaced Pages

talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Community sanction: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages talk:Administrators' noticeboard Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 01:17, 4 March 2007 editCentrx (talk | contribs)37,287 edits →Proposal to close Community noticeboard← Previous edit Revision as of 01:20, 4 March 2007 edit undoWAS 4.250 (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers18,993 edits →Proposal to close Community noticeboardNext edit →
Line 288: Line 288:
::::AN is for discussions which are ''relevant to'' administrators, not ''regarding'' administrators. The only use given for this noticeboard when it was created is "community bans", which require an administrator. There were not fully fleshed-out reasons with facts to create the noticeboard in the first place, but it seems to just be an unnecessary and less-frequented fork and duplicate (one that seems to have a lot more bizarre voting too). Come up with a well-defined purpose for this noticeboard before defending its existence. —]→]&nbsp;&bull; 01:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC) ::::AN is for discussions which are ''relevant to'' administrators, not ''regarding'' administrators. The only use given for this noticeboard when it was created is "community bans", which require an administrator. There were not fully fleshed-out reasons with facts to create the noticeboard in the first place, but it seems to just be an unnecessary and less-frequented fork and duplicate (one that seems to have a lot more bizarre voting too). Come up with a well-defined purpose for this noticeboard before defending its existence. —]→]&nbsp;&bull; 01:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
:But then where are people going to put malformed RfCs that don't have a second party to certify having tried to resolve the dispute? ] 00:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC) :But then where are people going to put malformed RfCs that don't have a second party to certify having tried to resolve the dispute? ] 00:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

] ] 01:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 01:20, 4 March 2007

Some discussion

On my watchlist. HighInBC 00:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Similarly. – Chacor 00:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I've added a bit, please feel free to edit/second-guess/slash away. IronDuke 01:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Template updates

I have edited the navbox template to add archives, and removed the header from the board. I have made a page at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/CommunityHeader and transcluded it similar to what is done on the incidents noticeboard. Navou / review me 04:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I moved it to Misplaced Pages:Community noticeboard/Header. Picaroon 05:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

New shortcut - chaned the redir of WP:CN to here from its original target: Misplaced Pages:Common knowledge. This keeps it in line with WP:AN and WP:BN, makes more sense as this is likely to be used widely and knowledge is not spelt with a N at the start. Viridae 07:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that's a good idea. Nearly everything that links to it refers to wikipedia:common knowledge. I picked CNB as the shortcut because that one only had several links, not dozens. Picaroon 01:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Archive service

I have placed werdna bot on the page, if you want the notice to go away, I think I can do that without doing away with the archiving. Thoughts? Navou / review me 00:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Community noticeboard

I may have missed some of this history of whatever discussion prompted this (I see none here), but this page seems a bit out of place. Wouldn't this be better at someplace like the Village Pump instead? Isn't this needlessly fragmenting things? IronGargoyle 02:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Possibly. See Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard#Should_we_initiate_a_new_noticeboard.3F.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  07:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. I shall review. IronGargoyle 16:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Cross posted: To be honest, I think I'd rather move AN over CN; from my perspective, splitting the discussion like this seems more confusing than anything. It adds another page for me to watch over, fragments already-hectic discussion, and may add to the unfortunate perception that admins are more important than other users. Well-intentioned, I am very much sure, but a move/merge may be more useful than a split, is my take. – Luna Santin (talk) 04:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

For reference, the WP:AN discussion was archived and the link to it is now: ++Lar: t/c 21:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Move posts?

I don't mind having a new specialized noticeboard, but it will only be productive if we move inappropriate posts to the forum where they actually belong. Already the Community Board is picking up policy-related discussions that arguably belong on WP:VPP or WP:VPR. Otherwise I'm afraid we'll just confuse matters. >Radiant< 16:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Sigh...

It states quite clearly at the top of the page:

While comments from all editors are welcome, please note that "voting" won't be taking place, including on proposed community bans. Ejecting an editor from the community does not rest solely on simple majorities, or even supermajorities.

Yet people appear to be voting on proposed community bans (such as CroDome's) as if it were an RfA or similar (i.e. bolding their opinion, !votes like "Support", etc). This is really dissappointing. I don't think that the Community Noticeboard should be used for everyone to pile on a disliked user.. whatever happened to consensus, discussion, the dispute resolution process? I know that this page is meant to be used for, amongst other things, such proposed bans, and it will attract a lot of disputes but this just feels wrong. --Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 23:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I apologize, I was not aware that bolding one's opinion meant 'voting'. However, each person that has 'voted' according to the definition, has supplied reasons behind their so-called 'vote'. I see nothing wrong with this. Those who make the final decision should in turn disregard the number of so-called 'votes' but take into account the arguments supporting them. Therefore, I see nothing wrong with the discussion regarding a community block for user CroDome. Maîtresse 23:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  • There are a number of examples where a user has simply left a message along the lines of "Support, this user deserves a ban" and then left with no participation in the discussion. This is not working towards consensus and besides isn't fair on a user who has a ban proposed against them. Besides that, bans are meant to be used at the end of dispute resolution, not for a user who has not so much as been blocked! This is ridiculous and completely out of line with policy. Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 23:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I was referring to the CroDome discussion, where users have supported their so-called 'votes'. Maîtresse 23:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
it is helpful to see the trend of discussion in a quick summary, but yes, there are other words to use the "support" or "oppose" ; individualized wording might differentiate this page from other processes.In terms of a ban, as I understand it what we would be doing is recommending, but i do not fully understand where that recommendation goes. DGG 23:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Something along those lines sounds good. Maîtresse 23:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Argh!

Blasted semiprotection! Now I'll have to go to the ANI! 68.39.174.238 05:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Or register... MastCell 06:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
But it does bring up the question as to exactly why this page is semiprotected. I just checked through this page's entire edit history (it's not too long... yet) and I saw relatively little IP vandalism. Rather I saw quite a lot of legitimate discussion from IP accounts. Anon users are indeed still part of the community so I think they should be allowed to participate here. —Elipongo 15:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree completely. I think it's an absolute travesty when community discussion pages like this one and the villiage pumps are semi-protected. ~ ONUnicornproblem solving 15:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Not at all. You abuse it, you lose it. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 18:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

But the people who are abusing it and the people who are losing it are not the same people. The people who abuse it (hopefully) lose their edit priveleges entierly by being blocked. Those who suffer by having the page semi-protected are innocent users. ~ ONUnicornproblem solving 18:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
And as I pointed out above, there was actually very little IP vandalism that actually happened; definitely less than ten such edits out of nearly a thousand legitimate ones for this page. That wouldn't warrant semi protection on an article much less here. —Elipongo 18:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Until Werdna stamps out per-page-blocks, semi-protection is the only available option. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 19:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

It still doesn't explain why semi-protection was applied to begin with. I have half a mind to remove it, but I'll ask for more opinions. Titoxd 19:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Well it obviously wasn't me, being not a sysop. The best idea is always to ask the protecting sysop why they protected the page to begin with, as opposed to speculation. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 19:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I've unprotected the page, there's just not enough vandalism going on. We can live with the occasional revert. --Conti|✉ 19:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you there Conti. I was going to do it myself after reading this thread. Semi-move protecting isn't a bad idea... if we need to move this it will be after a discussion of some kind. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 02:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Templates for ban requests

This page is chaotic. We should create templates for community ban requests -- along the lines of {{afd2}} and possibly even one like {{afd1}} to notify the user in question -- to help keep things organized. --N Shar 23:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Please no... heavens no. Community bans are serious enough that to trivialize them with templates would be a step in the wrong direction. These things a discussions and attempts to form consensus, give evidence, etc... not votes. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 02:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree. No. If you want to have a user banned, at least notify him of the discussion personally. Doing it with a template is unnecessarily inflammatory. Titoxd 02:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough, but I still think the page is rather messy, and some sort of template could help organize it. When I speak of {{afd2}}, I don't mean to suggest that the discussion associated with the template would be in the same style as AfD. That template has nothing to do with !votes or their absence. Community bans are indeed serious -- all the more reason to keep the discussion organized. If a user can't navigate his/her own community ban discussion, that would be a very serious problem. --N Shar 03:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps you could create a template so that we can better see what you are intending. Then we can discuss this test template. Navou / contribs 00:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't obfuscate consensus.

I'd like to request that, in the future, people leading discussions about community bans or related issues should not try to use preferential voting to express a consensus. List a few options (the fewer the better) and get people to support or oppose them, so that anyone reading the page can see whether there's a consensus for each option.

I'm a fan of using preferential voting in many situations that require actual voting, but a page like this fails at its intended purpose if it takes a calculator to figure out what the consensus is. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 11:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages policy vs. claims of editors in the community ban of User:GordonWatts

From Misplaced Pages:Community_noticeboard, is this quote: Weighing up the above, it is clear to me that the community mood is that Gordon Watts should not edit Terry Schiavo articles directly, should not link or suggest links to his own sites, and should restrict himself to making a very small number of brief comments to Talk pages, of the order of one per day. If Gordin is not able to abide by this restriction then a ban will be sought, either through community processes or through ArbCom. Guy (Help!) 13:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I did not get any sleep last night because of a combination of overnight auto trouble and the sudden death of my cousin, Kitty Barnett, which I learned this morning. so I am quite preoccupied with other things, but I see this sudden reply, and the template says that: "Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page," so I shall comport and reply -much to the chagrin of some users, I am sure.

Reply:

  • "should not link ... to his own sites" Although I do admit that many years ago, I added a link to one of my newspapers, after having obtained concensus, and this may have been against current policy, that action many years ago is not being discussed or criticised -plus, I was a new editor back then. This admin here quite clearly shows that I did not add any links to my website: "The dispute seems to have started with this uncivil edit summary from Calton. The material Calton was removing was in the article when I joined Misplaced Pages in April 2005 (before Gordon). The actual link (to a site that Calton objected to, but not Gordon's personal website) was added by Zenger, not by Gordon, although Gordon did revert the person who reverted Zenger.." So, I am innocent of linking to my own site.
  • "should not ... suggest links to his own sites" This requirement by the "mood" is against current Misplaced Pages policy. Observe: Misplaced Pages policy: WP:COI clearly says that "If you feel it necessary to make changes to Misplaced Pages articles despite a real or perceived conflict of interest, we strongly encourage you to submit content for community review on the article's talk page or file a Request for Comment to the wider community, and to let one or more trusted community members judge whether the material belongs in Misplaced Pages," not that I suggest links to my web papers very often. Also, Misplaced Pages:Spam#Canvassing point 6 states that "If your product is truly relevant to an article, others will agree -- try the talk page. We usually recommend that editors be bold in adding directly to articles. But if the above advice makes you concerned that others will regard your contribution as spam, you can find out without taking that risk: Describe your work on the article's talk page, asking other editors if it is relevant."
  • If the editors who suggested this restriction don't like me occasionally suggesting my own websites -for occasions when no other link will do (like when The Register was the only paper to cover one Terri Schiavo Oral Argument hearing in my hometown), then these editors should either change the policy -or leave Misplaced Pages. The rules are the rules.
  • "...should restrict himself to making a very small number of brief comments to Talk pages, of the order of one per day." This is the one possibly valid complaint made against me (I was not guilty of edit-warring or linking my own site, even though one revert did have that net effect). So, a review of the RfBan page for this action will reveal that the editors claimed I was too talkative -and companied about the content of my talk page comments. This editor sums up the community opinion of many (if not most) editors: They felt that I talked too much -and they didn't like what I posted, however to restrict my talk page comments based solely on the content is censorship. Yes, I admit that, on occasion, I sometimes post somewhat lengthy posts -but so did Martin, another user, on the related talk page, as this diff shows, but he is not criticised or restricted. Also, this diff shows my documentation that I did not dominate the talk page, posting far less than half of the comments, even though no one should have objected had I posted even half.
  • So, it appears that my talk page comments (in the Community noticeboard talk page primarily) were rejected because of content, but this is censorship: I never threatened to violate concensus or policy, so the mere fact I held a [[minority[[ opinion regarding certain links (many of them not my own newspapers) leads me to believe I was censored because of my minority view -and hints others may have been jealous that I have accomplished so much in this case, more than them.
    • Calton has a very lengthy history of having caused trouble, but he is not guilty of the actions of the other editors; They acted on a matter and made premature conclusions without actually knowing the facts.

OK, did I violate policy -or, rather, did I merely annoy editors, who falsely claimed I had violated policy.--GordonWatts 01:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I should point out that this talk page is for improvements and suggestions for its associated project page. If you disagree with the decision, I would suggest you try appealing to the Arbitration Committee, this is not the place for it though. —Elipongo 02:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I think your suggestion has merit; I shall do as you say! However, I respectfully point out that my post here is placed in the correct place: See the policy that I quoted immediately above to support this claim. Thank you for your feedback, Elipongo . I shall grant your request.--GordonWatts 02:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I just want to comment that even if the websites don't have "Gordon Watts" in the URL, they're still personal websites. That was not a "false claim". Call them newspapers if you want; they're personal newspaper sites. Leebo 02:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I have initiated WP:RFAR action against you and the other editors involved in this recent ban action

I have initiated WP:RFAR action against you and the other editors involved in this recent ban action. Observe:

Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration#Current_requests

--GordonWatts 02:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it's unlikely that the ArbCom will accept the case as it is currently presented. Specifically because nothing was presented under "Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried". I don't know if the community discussion that spawned the complaint counts as other forms of dispute resolution (for instance, if one had a problem with how a request for comment was undertaken, one wouldn't present that specific RfC as proof that dispute resolution had been tried). Leebo 03:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I have mixed feelings on the likelihood that your analysis is correct, but thank you for it, and I feel clean regarding my allegation that I had tried all other remedies to the best available form. Also, this is more than a problem regarding me -how I am treated sets the tone to how all editors are treated when they have minority opinions: Even as others point out, it was more than just the length of my posts.--GordonWatts 03:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


I have no dog in this fight, but I read the RFAR, and it seems like your actions there torpedoed your own case. You had a point, which was that the community ban wasn't agreed upon, which was a good point. You had supporters, good ones. You should have stated your case, briefly, then shut up. Instead, your extensive arguments were what mostly convinced the arbcom that Guy was right. --AnonEMouse 15:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't doubt your neutrality here - I take your word, but I ask you to take my word: Even when I was quiet for like 2 days in the community action, it degenerated into a quagmire, and my continued silence would not have changed things -but I shall meditate on your words: There is a time for silence. PS: I have posted very little in recent hours to that fast-paced ArbCom board -I have made my case -for better or worse, and many think (like you and I) that it's public display will eventually straighten out (in my favour) --it's just a matter of time -so long as I do nothing stupid. (Let's hope :-)
--GordonWatts 15:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Logging long running sanctions for reference

see Wikipedia_talk:Community_sanction#Time_to_revive_this... there is some overlap between this, and the Community Sanction page (and its log). I favour rationalisation of this page, that one, and the Community Sanction log so that discussions get archived appropriately but there is a non automatically archived place to refer to which can tell interested parties what sanctions are in place. Comments? There may be best or here, whichever. ++Lar: t/c 21:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

That figures...

In the few weeks since its conception, this noticeboard is already rife with topics that might as easily fit on the village pump or admin board. In other words, in effect it serves no clear purpose at the moment except as being Yet Another Page to watchlist if one wishes to keep track of what is happening. >Radiant< 17:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The page being used outside of it's intended purpose is not tantamount to the page having no purpose. To me this is the place to deal with discussions of community bans and such that would normally clutter up other noticeboards. All noticeboards get off topic posts, I believe the best solution would be increased clarification and enforcement of the scope of the page. InBC 17:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I realize that, but the point is that it is almost exclusively used outside of its intended purpose. I'm sure this board was well-intended, but that doesn't change the fact that at the moment, it is superfluous and redundant. I'm not sure how a Big Notice would fix that considering it doesn't really help on the admin board either. >Radiant< 17:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
It would be fine if we came up with well defined purposes for each board, of course you are always going to have to re-direct some queries. —— Eagle101 22:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I see several examples of it being used well. I think better enforcement of the scope is what is needed. InBC 22:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
"the place to deal with discussions of community bans and such that would normally clutter up other noticeboards"? That seems to me like a bad idea. This page looks like a fork of the Adminitrators' Noticeboard in the form of attempted revival of quickpolls, putting the question of bans to community votes. That is very much not what community bans are about or how they are arrived at, and the whole conception of the page seems wrongheaded. If I ever have need to discuss a potential community ban, it won't be here. Dmcdevit·t 09:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, to be fair, the way combans are presently handled on the admin noticeboard also looks like a community vote, even though I'm sure that's not really intended and not really a good idea either. At present, someone says "I want to comban that user" and other people go endorse. At any rate, I would suggest that we aggressively move any content that belongs elsewhere to the correct place (e.g. ANI or the pump). That may (or may not) leave this page rather empty. >Radiant< 10:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
    Most of all, I'd appreciate some clear guidance as to what noticeboard is used for what. How is this different from the Village Pump, for instance? From the Admin's Noticeboard? From ANI? From RFC? I think I know the answers, but it's not spelled out very clearly and I can easily imagine people getting confused. --ais523 10:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Analysis

  • Looking at the current posts,
    • Community ban on Gordon Watts belongs on ANI.
    • Jonathan Ryan indef blocked belongs on ANI.
    • Comban on Classicjupiter also belongs on ANI.
    • Are we supposed to check this page, belongs on this talk page.
    • User abusing minor edits belongs on VPP.
    • Kurdistan-related categories belong on CFD and/or DRV
    • Arbitration closure note, well, I don't know, they get advertised anywhere.
    • Posting of thesis/term paper probably belogns on VPA, or Copyvio page
    • GAC notice belongs on RFC or GO or the wikiproject board
    • User removing context MIGHT belong here if we want a page for "problems with user conduct that don't require admin intervention", although (1) VPA already does that, and (2) not everybdoy knows the difference. Otherwise, ANI.
    • Adding 100+ extlinks ditto, or on the EL talk
    • Proposed indefblock on Buzzard, ANI again
    • Community ban on Miracle, ditto
    • BLP noticeboard needs help, CENT or RFC or GO or A but not here
    • C/P move: RM
    • Clerk discussion: arguably, the village pump; was advertsied on ANI anyway
    • BLP review - I think we've got RFR for that.
  • So just about nothing that is posted here could not also have been covered elsewhere. Centralization is GOOD. Fragmentation is not. >Radiant< 10:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with your contention that Community Bans belong on WP:ANI Radiant!. Community bans are decided by the Community, not by a subset of admins, which is why this board was created, as a place for the community to discuss issues. I agree that centralization is nice, but there are times it is damn near impossible to get a post in at WP:ANI without multiple edit conflicts. As we seem to be doing away with more admin related pages (WP:PAIN, etc) it is just putting more strain on a page that is already overloaded. I agree some of the other posts could go elsewhere, but community bans don't really belong on ANI.--Isotope23 14:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to be bold and slightly refactor the below into its own subsection. Far be it from me to question the good faith or value of the below topic, but I would hate to see it derail, overwhelm, or stifle the above question.

As for the analysis, I think it starts from the wrong angle. Before looking at the topics here and deciding that they belong elsewhere or that fragmentation is occurring, we should probably try to clearly define what the page is for and what sorts of things that should be seen here. If the header above is clear and correct and it's a simple affirmation that's fine, but if folk end up struggling to communicate the concept of what this noticeboard is entirely for it probably at the least speaks towards a need for a stronger definition or honing as a distinct concept. Bitnine 14:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, I just squeezed in my response to Radiant above.--Isotope23 15:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Bitnine. The purpose of the community noticeboard, as I understand it, is to keep "community ban / block" discussions out of WP:ANI, because those decisions are up to the community rather than only administrators. However, I agree with Radiant in that this noticeboard seems to have been rather badly thought-out. Why wouldn't user conduct WP:RFCs suffice for allowing a broad-spectrum community input on community ban issues? Or, for that matter, why should their being discussed on WP:ANI be thought of as unfair to non-admin members of the community? Anyone is free to post there, after all. The relevant text at the top of the noticeboard is: "If you would like to discuss issues that the community should be aware of, such as proposed community bans, feel free to post them here. The administrators' noticeboard is more geared towards admin-specific issues, and the village pump is centered around discussing policies and proposals; this page is for things directly relevant to the Misplaced Pages community at large, of both encyclopedic and administrative nature." I think it's not really true that the admin noticeboard deals with admin-specific issues (although it maybe should), but why should this be distinct from the Village pump? Mangojuice 14:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Of course combans are discussed by the community; the admin noticeboard is fully editable to non-admins (indeed, a good way of becoming an admin is joining those discussions and making helpful comments). However, a ban does require an admin action, hence the name of the board. I wouldn't personally mind discussing combans in some other place, but the main point is that this particular board has no clear distinction from ANI, RFC, RFF and the Pump. >Radiant< 15:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I see your point, I just don't know if I agree that keeping the discussion at ANI is the best way forward. Regardless though, this is a gray area that needs to be better defined.--Isotope23 15:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I think it's good to have community ban discussion somewhere other than ANI for two reasons. One, ANI is an admin domain. In theory people should always be free to comment there, but in some discussions it gets to feel like the home turf of admins, and I wouldn't want anyone to be discouraged from participating. But more importantly, community ban discussions should probably take more time than is possible for an ANI thread, and ANI has a heavy load already and community ban threads can be very long and involved. BUT -- this noticeboard should be clearly defined as for that purpose only. A change needs to be made to Misplaced Pages:Community noticeboard/Header. Mangojuice 15:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree that this forum needs a more defined role. Looking at Radiant's analysis above, this page seems to be used most often for proposing and discussing community bans/sanctions, so I'll say a few words about those. I suppose they could be moved to an existing forum, though many of them are already overloaded. Also, as pointed out by Mangojuice, community ban discussions tend to hand around longer and thus take up more space for longer periods of time. For this reason I'm not sure we'd want to shift the burden onto ANI. I could see RfC being used for community ban discussions, though the format would likely need some tweaking. If comm bans were handled through RfCs (not sure I like that idea), this board likely wouldn't see much activity. In any case, the first step does seem to be to define exactly what this board is. ChazBeckett 17:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

As for this board itself, I think that it probably does warrant a tightening of the definition. I tend to think that at least three types of things would be good to see here:

  • Community bans/sanctions. These are actions undertaken by the community, and while anyone is free to post on AN/I, making participation more accessible and clearly denoting community action to its a good thing, so long as we watch how it unfolds. I think we've seen an increase in nonadmins feeling able to propose and discuss such actions here, and keeping the sometimes voluminous text out of AN/I is good for helping administrators in being able to focus on actionable incidents. Additionally, apparently the arbcom showed some support for the community's right and practice of enacting sanctions and bans.
  • "RfC light". For lack of a better formal term, I'm sure most of us have seen miscellaneous problems that impact the community wherein someone suggests an RfC should be started. However, the RfCs supposedly have a threshold of previous attempts to address the issue, which get ignored time to time because the issue doesn't have really a home for its discussion. This board can serve as a home for those community concerns that fall short of that threshold. (Though certainly not to say that those with homes shouldn't be properly channeled.)
  • Community review. It seems very useful to have an avenue for a general review of items by a cross-section of the community. This includes both areas where an editor might feel that there is a bias present in a particular project that does not represent the community, and items that do not fall under particular projects, such as a general comment on actions. At the very least, it remains a good place to bring attention to certain items without running into canvassing concerns. Bitnine 17:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't think this is a good place for RfC light: if anything, conduct complaints on an unregulated board like this are likely to cause more hurt feelings and take up more community time than an actual RfC. As for community review: doesn't that duplicate the Village Pump? Mangojuice 18:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Analysis as it pertains to GordonWatts

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.


  • HEY, I have a question here: All those "other" posts below might be distracting to a "real" question.
  • (quoting asi523's request: "Most of all, I'd appreciate some clear guidance as to what noticeboard is used for what" quoting Radiant!'s response "Looking at the current posts, Community ban on Gordon Watts belongs on ANI.") My reply/Question: Hey, you remember me! I'm the guy who added, like, the next-to-last segment on your quilt. Well done. Anyhow, small question here (especially as it touches me) -Does the community ban notice imposed by the admin in that matter notice belong on the ANI simply because it is an "incident" that happened -to notify the admins of the ban? -Or rather would an "incident" only be excitant if I violated this "ban?" That is, what is the definition of an "incident" as it applies here. Thanks in advance.--GordonWatts 11:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


the simple answer Gordon is "no you will not be able to dance around your community ban from the TS pages (and as it is clear is going to happen ARBCOM upholding that ban) by further wikilawyering based on the conversation on this debate page". --Fredrick day 11:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
If you don't know the answer, then please, Frederick, refrain from rude comments!!
You make things so complicated. It's a "yes" or "no" question. Either "incidents" include bans -or not. Manner, manners!--GordonWatts 11:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
In the latter case, if "incidents" don't include mere bans, then they would only include "violations of bans," so I'm asking a question -to educate myself on policy -and you should not be so rude! Now, do you wonder why I tell people to "chill out" sometimes? It is because of comments like yours, in which you are not as part of any solution -just a bunch of rude insults; You can do better, I know you can.--GordonWatts 11:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
refrain from rude comments!!' It's not a rude comment, it's a truthful one: that you cannot and never have been able to tell the difference is your problem, not anyone else's. --Calton | Talk 13:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Whether his statement is true or not is not the problem; I asked a question, and he wasted airtime with a soapbox reply -off-topic. So, the real question is this: If you two are so concerned about wiki lawyering, then I'LL ask YOU GUYS a question: What if I'm right on most or all of my claims? Would wiki lawyering then not be OK? And (follow-up question), if it's not the right approach to possible policy violations, then what is?--GordonWatts 13:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Gordon, no one is listening to you. The right approach is to try to not piss the entire world off by being an advocate for your cause after your cause has lost. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
While you have good intent and motives here, your logic fails on one point: My actions do not keep the few detractors from being "pissed," as you put it: They are angry at the world no matter whether I post or remain silent (trust me: I've done both, and they don't change -been there - done that - your plan did not work!).
PS: #1 - It is not "my" cause - it is all of our causes, as MANY (not just moi) are victimized by rogue admins -#2: The matter is far from losing; Time will tell -all so well. Oh, yeah, even WERE there a majority or "consensus" against me (there wasn't, not on most points under review), still, sometimes the majority is wrong. Remember that 7-letter word, called "slavery?" No, you'd rather forget -that majority can sometimes be wrong. Don't learn from history -go ahead, and plug your ears! History repeats...--GordonWatts 14:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


The first rule of holes is "If you are in one, stop digging." Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
OK, then why do so many on "your" side keep "digging?" (here and on the ArbCom board)--GordonWatts 14:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Reality check for Gordon:
  • Current word count at RfAr:
  • Musical Linguist - 1271 words (154% over the limit)
  • JzG - 768 words (53% over the limit)
  • Calton - 542 words (including this post) (8% over the limit)
  • GordonWatts - 3390 words (578% over the limit)
Not even close to comparable. The one who's halfway to the Earth's core and headed for China would be you, Gordon. --Calton | Talk 14:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


This is a page for discussing the community noticeboard itself, not yet another venue for seeking loopholes. I suggest moving any further responses to this thread to Gordon's talk page. Thanks. ChazBeckett 14:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

My post was a question to Radiant! about a comment HE (or she) made -unrelated to my appeal, and thus your suggestion is out of order. This board is not the right place for your opinions of my ArbCom place. Take your discussion to the proper board, please. If you persist in any further off-topic or insulting comments, you could end up on the business end of sanctions or a ban. Keep it up. Or, don't.--GordonWatts 14:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I could get banned for suggesting that a thread that's gone off-topic should be moved to your talk page? Wow. I don't really know how to respond to that. ChazBeckett 14:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure what Gordon is trying to say, but his passive-aggression is not appropriate either. Leebo 14:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
What I'm saying is that I asked an ON-topic question, and Chaz just jumped in there and took up space with off-topic comments (which, quite frankly, were insulting, because they falsely suggested I was myself making off-topic comments about my ArbCom case -when -in fact -I was asking the purposed of the various pages. My question is legit, but if you don't know the answer to it, then don't waste all our time with off-topic blabber. That's not an impossible request, is it? Keep the comments on topic.--GordonWatts 14:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Gordon, you not only have no authority to threaten people with bans -- no matter how passive-aggressively you couch them -- you have not the slightest shred of credibility in getting anyone with any degree of authority to carry one out. You don't like how a discussion is going? Tough nuggies. --Calton | Talk 14:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Cool it Gordon. You took a broad statement by User:Radiant! about the purpose of this board and skewed it off into an off-topic thread about your proposed community ban. WP:POT, I'd be a bit careful about bandying about threats of sanctions against another editor.--Isotope23 14:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    • Ah, you're finally online! --- I had a question about the proper use of this board, and every time I asked it, some talkative poster kept jutting in a big long comment -until finally the thread got shut down! Anyhow, see the question below? Could you please clarify whether a "community ban" is sufficient to be considered an "incident" to be posted on the incident board -or would the action have to rise to the level of a person committing an infraction for it to be an "incident?" Thanks you in advance -and let me repeat, Chaz and company, -if you don't have a question -or don't know the answer, butt out -and let the experts answer the matter. TIA!--GordonWatts 15:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Gordon: IMO it's better to say what kinds of incidents don't belong on ANI, since by default they seem to go there. I think: things that don't require admin attention shouldn't go there, and things that are too complicated and require too much discussion to be resolved in a short amount of time. So in your case, the community ban discussion should not have gone on there (if I had my druthers, it should have been at an RFC, though), but yes, violations of a ban are appropriate on ANI. Mangojuice 15:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

archive bot

I am going to build a bot to archive this notice board (will be listed at bot approvals for BAG action) . Any objections? Navou / contribs 13:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Excellent idea.--Isotope23 14:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Um, doesn't Werdnabot do that already? –Henning Makholm 16:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Yep, although the userbox is hidden. It last ran a few hours ago ChazBeckett 17:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I did not see its run this morning, and it looked like some old discussions were still on the page. Navou / contribs 00:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
In theory it should be archiving any section where the most recent comment is at least two days old. In practice I believe that missing or malformed signatures might cause a section to be missed. ChazBeckett 00:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Purpose of this board

I feel as if we need a clear consensus of the purpose of this board, and state that anything else is subject to movement to the appropriate board. I believe this should be wrote into the /header. Thoughts on the wording? Navou / contribs 05:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

A proposal: The community noticeboard is for issues that require immediate community action or consensus, or that the community must be aware of. Issues that require the action of only a few administrators should be directed to the appropriate page of the administrator's noticeboard instead.
This has its weaknesses, but I think it explains pretty well what this noticeboard is for. --N Shar (talk • contribs) 06:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Why "immediate"? -Amarkov moo! 06:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Because otherwise it should go to the Village Pump. --N Shar (talk • contribs) 06:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
But that's a somewhat arbitrary distinction, and most users will want "immediate" attention to whatever they're suggesting. In other words, what you suggest is basically a "priority" version of the village pump, that will in effect cover the exact same material as the pump does. >Radiant< 08:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe the first purpose of this board ought to be to discuss and determine the first purpose of this board.... except, whoops, I just settled that, didn't I? Okay, so the second purpose of this board ought to be to discuss and determine the second purpose of this board.... wait a minute.... maybe the third purpose of this board ought to be.... no.... I seem to be stuck in some kind of repeating reiterative recursive endless* loop here! -- Ben 09:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
     * Not to mention redundant.

The first rule of Community Noticeboard is, you do not talk about Community Noticeboard. The second rule of Community Noticeboard is, you DO NOT talk about Community Noticeboard. --Random832 18:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Header

I've updated the header. Key changes: the purpose of the board is described to be for discussion of community bans and other actions requiring broad community support. This allows for the ban discussions and also other discussions that really need to be somewhere more visible than the Village Pump. Also, I've removed the standard Admin Noticebord disclaimer directing people to other reporting boards. I also made a note that this page is not a substitute for WP:RFCs: I feel strongly about this. RFCs are designed to help resolve disputes better than unstructured discussions do. When a community ban is needed, it should be discussed, but we shouldn't be getting community input at the same time. Although this might turn out to be a kind of RfC type forum, it should not be encouraged, and people should be reminded that RFCs are an option. Mangojuice 18:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Well you may have a very good reason you removed it, that I might be missing. I do not want to revert you if this is the case. It has been suggested that the discussions were fragmenting to this board, I thought perhaps if the users knew where else to go (correctly go) that may ease the fragmentation/influx of posts inappropriate or non germane to this board. What do you think? Navou / contribs 21:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I dunno. I don't like the implication that people should be coming to WP:CN with a "message" to be processed, which is what all the advice looks like. I think the header text already tells people where to head for other similar discussions. Having that box there makes it look like this is a page for filing complaints which will then be handled by others, which is more of an Admin noticeboard kind of way of approaching problems. Mangojuice 21:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to close Community noticeboard

I've thought long and hard about this board. After reviewing the discussion that led up to its creation and the activity on the board since then, I still feel like this is needless procedural fragmentation of community discussion that serves no real purpose. The discussions which are sent here are largely arbitrary and and have led to unfortunate situations like that of the Essay strawpoll, which clearly should have been handled as a request for comment from the start. Nothing here seems like it couldn't be handled somewhere else (e.g. Village pump, Administrator's noticeboard). I know some are worried that "Administrator's Noticeboard" is a turn-off to members of the community who are not administrators, but I wouldn't be surprised if the admin/non-admin ratio at this noticeboard was actually higher than at the administrator's noticeboard itself. I do not doubt that this noticeboard was created in good faith and with the best of intentions, but I feel like it is an experiment that has failed. The discussion above regarding the purpose of the board is a perfect example. Unless anyone has any evidence that this board is effective at this unique location, I propose this board be marked as a rejected proposal/board/whatever and kept as an archive. I'm not sure if the talk page is the best location for this discussion. Perhaps a MfD would be the best outlet. It obviously shouldn't be deleted though. Any thoughts? IronGargoyle 00:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The AN was never meant for community decisions, it was meant as a place to notify administrators of a) information they should know, such as new policy or features and b) incidents that needed quick administrative intervention. I'm sorry, but the only reason you've given for why CN should be closed is the Essjay straw poll, which obviously was a mistake (and to be perfectly honest, shouldn't have been anywhere — it was removed from the RFC). You have ignored the numerous examples of successful community discussion that has already occurred at a brand-new board, which I don't think is fair. Basically, I don't know why you want to reject i; you haven't given an actual reason in my opinion. Respectfully, —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 00:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Where are you getting your ideas about what AN is for? ANI is for quick administrative intervention; AN is for discussions relevant to administrators. What "successful" discussions have happened here that would not have been just as or more successful on the more-well-watched AN or village pump? It was never and is still not clear what belongs on the "Community noticeboard" that does not belong on AN or VP, and the only reason for its creation was that some people are scared of commenting on AN. —Centrx→talk • 01:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Durova, who is an admin, created this noticeboard. And she's not exactly scared of commenting on AN. --physicq (c) 01:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I know; the reason for creating it though is "although this noticeboard is open to everyone, its title does tend to scare away the unmopified crowd" . —Centrx→talk • 01:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
From the very top of WP:AN. Yes, you're correct, AN is for discussions regarding administrators (my description was more limiting than I intended it to be) — which is NOT what the CN was intended to be. Just take a jaunt through the archive to see successful discussions; I don't know whether they would have been more or less successful somewhere else because they didn't happen there, but I can tell you that most of them shouldn't have been somewhere else (in my opinion). Please note that I am not dismissing this suggestion, I'm simply asking for fully fleshed-out reasons with facts to back them up. I don't feel that the original post did so. If discussion yields valid reasons, then I'd be all for it. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 01:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
AN is for discussions which are relevant to administrators, not regarding administrators. The only use given for this noticeboard when it was created is "community bans", which require an administrator. There were not fully fleshed-out reasons with facts to create the noticeboard in the first place, but it seems to just be an unnecessary and less-frequented fork and duplicate (one that seems to have a lot more bizarre voting too). Come up with a well-defined purpose for this noticeboard before defending its existence. —Centrx→talk • 01:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
But then where are people going to put malformed RfCs that don't have a second party to certify having tried to resolve the dispute? Jkelly 00:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Daniel Brandt deletion wheel war/Proposed decision WAS 4.250 01:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)