User talk:MBisanz/RfBan

Idea

I had this idea after seeing it done at Japanese Wikipedia and seeing how our current ban discussions at AN/ANI are rather disorderly and tend to resemble a mob more than an actual discussion. MBisanz ^talk 03:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

More ideas

Wasn't sure whether to add this above, comment there, or create a new section... Carcharoth (talk) 12:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• Examples of, um, lynch mob threads? Might be educational. Might not be helpful.
• I strongly support the calming influences of a start and end point. That might avoid swift pile ons and can lead to more measured discussion. Maybe we could compare this with WP:FAR and WP:FARC? The RfC is the review. The ban discussion is the FARC, something shorter than the RfC, but still-a-discussion, and which leads to some sort of sanction (ie. gives RfC teeth).
• I would suggest that a period of calm (a week?) be enforced between the RfC and the ban discussion. Gives both sides a chance to calm down and gives the user a chance to either confirm the concerns or show they can reform. Also prevents angry ban comments in response to the recent incidents or RfC from all except those most upset. Others may have calmed down, while others may, after reflection, have not changed their views. The other alternative is to allow an automatic appeal after three months, but I think this week's grace might be better as the editor can show they can reform, whereas three months of being blocked doesn't always show very much.
• There was a proposal from the Arbitation Committee for an "indefinite blocks and bans" appeal committee - what happened to that? Does anyone have a link to that? If is different in some ways to this, but that committee, if set up, could deal with this process, rather than ArbCom. With ArbCom deling with appeals as normal.
• Don't forget that the result should be documented somewhere: WP:BANNED and (if needed) an arbitration case page.
• Appeal routes need to be presented. Appeal to the bureaucrat, the community, the ArbCom?
• One standard option might be to pass to the Arbitration Committee to make a decision. Getting bureaucrats to close could be very problematic. They might not want it, at it is Arbs that we've elected to deal with behavioural problems. I think if the format looks OK, they might not mind doing this, but then they might be too busy. Who knows. They (and the bureaucrats) should obviously be asked.
• The standard ArbCom sanction of a one year block should be a standard option on the table.
• What to do in cases where the user is blocked? Unblock to participate? Transclude section of the user's talk page?
• Keeping the tone of the discussions under control is vital. Decorum and standards of behaviour should be at least that expected on any other page, and people should all work actively to focus on evidence and avoid vague accusations. Excessive commenting on other people's comments (keep people restricted to their own section as at RfArb?) and cheerleading and egging people on should not be allowed. In this sense, a dedicated page with a talk page for the faff will help. AN and ANI don't have a talk page for peopleto go and argue on.
• Evidence, evidence, evidence. Should have been presented at the RfC, but equally, if new points are raised, the evidence is needed. Again, no vague accusations. Back up comments like "trolling" with actual examples and diffs.
• To go into more detail on that last point, and quoting myself from elsewhere:

  It's not easy to accurately assess someone's past and it is always much simpler to use a throwaway, vague statement, or go with a gut feeling. Just as an example, it would be much easier to assess things if everyone participating here had to: (a) quote at least one diff in their own statement of behaviour they found unacceptable; (b) disclosed prior involvement with the user; and (c) in some cases wiki-ideological (for want of a better word) position (if they have an openly declared one). That would make it so much easier for uninvolved people (and indeed those participating) to dispassionately assess what is going on.

  • (i) Every should quote (or mention clearly what they are talking about) at least one diff in their comment.
  • (ii) Extensive prior involvement with the user (friendly or otherwise) should be stated. Difficult to make sure people adhere to this, but a combination of trust and community pressure (if in each discussion some people take the lead and show by example that disclosing prior involvement is the done thing, then hopefully most others will do so as well).
• Finally, treat the seriousness of the process with respect. Imagine how you would feel if it was you going through this process. Don't overdo humour or sarcasm, and if you do engage in that, be prepared to retract, strike out and/or apologise. Criticise the behaviour in strong terms, but don't cross the line into personal attacks even if they have or do. Show people that we can show people the door civilly and calmly, and leave them options to reform, demonstrate they have reformed, and come back (taking this civil attitude is sometimes enough to get some people to reform and respond to kindness with kindness in return - I've seen this happen, though care is still needed to avoid being taken in by skilled trolls).
• Oh, not quite the last thing. :-) Other projects have been mentioned in the past as somewhere where people can go to demonstrate they have reformed and do do, well, penance if you like, though care is need to avoid using humiliating terms and setting impossible or humiliating conditions. Humiliation and revenge is not the aim here - even banned or soon-to-be-banned users are human as well.
• Make clear to the user that retirement is an option. Starting a new account is sometimes an option as well. Explain the difference between this and right-to-vanish.
• What to do when the user refuses to participate (only if we are sure they are aware of the request - compare continuing to edit, with acknowledging the request then going silent, or never acknowledging the request and going silent just before the request is filed.
• Some users respond poorly to the community. Give them the option to request an RfArb instead?
• Need to avoid a bureaucratic process. We already have WP:RFARB for that!

That's all I can think of for now. Might be too much. Is it better to keep the proposal simply at first, or incorporate all theabove in some way? Carcharoth (talk) 12:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks good

I like this. See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Location of ban discussions. You might want to float this idea there or wait until it has developed more. I'll add some specific suggestions here. I should also look up the old discussions and see what they say. Maybe also contact User:Jehochman and User:Durova if you want more pre-floating ideas, as I've seen them take an interest in this sort of thing. Carcharoth (talk) 11:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll float the idea around a bit. MBisanz ^talk 00:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I like this too. Good potential here, pending tweaks from further community input. It should reduce drama and make things less partisan. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Possible addition

I've added a draft section under "discussion close", based upon experience at other proccesses and ban discussions where it would have been helpful to set out the broad basis a decision is made upon. Crossref AFD where well known norms for closure help avoid disputes. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

It looks fair and reasonable

Since I was one of those mentioned at your notice on AN, I thought you might like input from an editor who has been on death row. This proposal looks fair, reasonable and well balanced. From my personal experience I was under the impression that an RFC/U would be used before a ban, Its nice to know that this is taken into consideration. I think that bans should not be discussed at ANI, that board already has an extremely bad reputation and many administrators avoid it at all costs, This proposal appears to address that. I think that De-sysoping is a community power and thus can be used in-conjunction with the ban or as an alternative and probably be done on the same page as RfBan. I think that their should be a "consideration time" where by users can ask questions but cannot !vote for a set period, this will avoid sake of the moment or other slapdash votes and will help users make sound and well thought decisions, banning is something we should not do hastily. The Arbs should not intervene at all unless it falls into their jurisdiction (that being only an RFAR) as the community is quite capable. I hope this helps, Keep me posted   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 02:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I like it

I like this. It is clear, fair, and structured in a way which should reduce the chances of over-hasty or hot-blooded action. I think it would reduce drama, and increase editor confidence in how we deal with some difficult and emotive situations. DuncanHill (talk) 02:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't have anything substantive to add, just a comment that this seems to me to be very worthwhile and that I hope it is pursued. Some of the banning discussions that I've followed have left a sour taste in my mouth, which has nothing to do with whether banning the editor was justified or not, and everything to do with the way it was done. I believe that having some structure around these discussions will help reduce that (although it will probably never eliminate it entirely).

My only other suggestion is that admins who are community banned should be desysoped, and be required to go through RfA again to get the bit back (if they want it) if the ban is lifted. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 04:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

When have we had an admin who was community banned but not desysopped? Mr.Z-man 23:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I suspect the closest case would have been the 5 day community ban given to Tony Sidaway's when he was a sysop. MBisanz ^talk 01:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Terminology

Sounds good, except that we're running into a terminology conflict over the word "ban". To many users, "ban" means an article ban or topic ban, and they're not familiar with what a site ban is, so "requesting a ban" may not make sense unless more context is given. Personally, I try to be very clear about whether I'm referring to an "article ban", "topic ban" or "site ban". This current page seems to be covering the "site ban" aspect, but doesn't cover the ArbCom discretionary sanction bans at all. Perhaps we need an entirely different word to separate the concepts? --Elonka 05:18, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I re-added section User:MBisanz/RfBan#Possible_types_of_bans which had been lost in editing, which sorta defines all the types of bans. I wasn't even thinking that discretionary sanctions could be confused with a community ban, since they are handled at RFAR pages, AE, etc, but maybe it needs to be more clear that they are not handled at this page. MBisanz ^talk 09:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Crat discussion on role of Crats

Speaking very much from a personal perspective, I'd be happy to undertake the kind of role allocated in the draft for Crats, but would first want to see a strong indication of consensus from the community for Crat involvement in a more naturally Arbcommy area. The natural place for this would be in the section two below this one, headed by Ryan P's comment. --Dweller (talk) 09:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I second Dweller. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

CSN?

Isn't this just a reheating of the CSN? Stifle (talk) 09:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

CSN purported to be a place to discuss a user's conduct and discuss what restriction should be imposed as a result of that conduct. All too often the latter concept (what to do) took precedence over the former concept (what they had done). This splits it up by saying: First have an RFC and establish what they did, then if other people think they actually did something wrong, let them come here and request a restriction. MBisanz ^talk 11:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I find it amusing to watch people who seldom (if ever) participated at CSN professing expertise about what happened there. Maybe I shouldn't have boycotted IRC or a cluster of absurd memes never would have gained traction. MBisanz, your comments here make me wonder how much research you've actually done--and that more than anything raises doubts about the soundness of your proposal. Durova^Charge! 07:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'll be the first to admit I was not active when the Community sanction noticeboard was in operation, so all I can gleam from it is what I read in archives; the time and specific context is gone for me. However, given that the knee-jerk reaction of people when I proposed this idea, and the private feedback people have given me almost universally is "OMG CSN", I figured it was worth distinguishing that this proposal is NOT CSN. Regardless of what CSN did, how well it did it, etc, this just is not that function. Looking at the CSN archives, I've constructed a table to show the differences I see MBisanz ^talk 17:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Differences

Community sanction noticeboard	Requests for banning	Commentary
Stated it should not be used for "complex or ambiguous cases" and that if a "case is not a straightforward case" it belonged elsewhere	States that it is to be used after an RfC. It is targeted for complex or ambiguous cases where individuals could have differing good faith views on the best result.	Two totally different purposes
Based on threaded discussion	Based on cased-subpages with individual comment sections	Threaded discussion is difficult to read for context because a single person may respond multiple times. Also, threaded discussion makes it difficult to separate out proposals.
Requester presented evidence for sanction and proposed the sanction	Requester must not be the RfC certifier, may only refer by link to the RfC evidence	Splitting the evidence presentation and sanction proposal decreases the odds of a rush to judgement
Evidence and sanction were presented and commented on together	Evidence and ban are explicitly split over different pages and time periods	We don't want to focus on the ban when we should be discussing the evidence
Anyone could close or the case would be archived due to age	Only certain very trusted users may close, and only on a certain time frame	We need skilled individuals capable of reading viewpoints and placing them in the larger context. Ban discussions need closure, the longer they hang around, the more drama and tension they create for all parties
Time period was based on when a discussion looked like it had reached consensus	Time period is set in stone	Prevents bum-rushes and mob style discussions from forcing a ban through when no one is looking
	I'll add more as I think of things. MBisanz talk 12:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to be getting back to this rather slowly; that chart obviously represents a lot of hard work. As far as it goes I can't find much fault with it, but substantial differences are omitted because of the way this is framed. Sanctions need not be bans. Banning should be the last resort rather than the first. The philosophy CSN regulars worked under is that first we presumed no action was needed at all (you had to make a good case for it) and whenever feasible, the person who's under consideration for sanctions should be free to participate on an equal basis. That meant discussion without blocking them unless an urgent block was necessary, and if the did need to be blocked we'd implement a transclusion template so they could still participate in the sanctions discussion (the template would take a post they made to their talk page and repost it to a section of the discussion). If they abused the template it was easy to disable, and sometimes their feedback changed the course of the discussion.

When CSN started out (and when it worked best), the standard is that editors who are involved in a dispute with the individual under scrutiny would not be the ones to decide on sanctions. Involved editors could present evidence and reasoning, but they were expected to declare their involvement proactively and let neutral parties examine it.

CSN was also innovative in looking into lesser solutions than full sitebans. Traditionally, the community had implemented escalating blocks and then indefinite blocks. CSN was where some of the first community topic bans occurred. If mentorship and 1RR at a particular article talk would solve a problem, we would try that.

One of the most important things that CSN tried to implement was documentation and long range follow-up: if someone is topic banned or under 1RR, where would such a thing be recorded? The archives we were building were an easily searchable location because they weren't crowded with other unrelated material, and an unfulfilled goal I had in setting that up was to perform long range analysis after 1 year, 2 years, etc. What types of sanctions are successful? Once we had a large enough body of cases it should be possible to crunch the numbers, categorize the disucussions by type. So if several dozen cases show that Solution A solves a type of situation 75% of the time and solution B solves the same type of situation 30% of the time, then we should be switching over and using Solution A routinely. Durova^Charge! 06:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible to come up with processes that combine the best of both (the old CSN and the new proposal)? I think that RfBan does fulfil the need for a formal process to decide on community site bans. Once you get to that stage, disagreements can spiral out of control on a discussion thread, and a more formal process helps keep that in check. I agree with Durova's comments about the more delicate approach CSN took for lesser sanctions. So, any way to combine the best bits of both? Maybe RfC first, then a CSN-style place or RfBan, but not both at the same time. Oh, and Durova, what, in your opinion, were the bad aspects of CSN, or the aspects that got out of control? Carcharoth (talk) 06:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

A small group of people gutted a key provision of the disruptive editing guideline. They changed it so that involved parties had a direct voice in sanctions discussions. After that happened, we dealt with periodic attempts to game the process. Occasionally I'd deal with the really obvious cases myself (such as the editor who canvassed talk pages in an effort to thwart his own siteban), but I wound up taking a series of cases over to RFAR as a direct result of that alteration--cases that would have been resolved on the community level under the original system where it was clear that one side or the other was trying to force an outcome for partisan reasons. In every one of those cases, one or more parties ended up hating me for opening the arbitration request. Some of their process complaints were right; I'd agree with them and invite them to help get the guideline back on track when their case was resolved. None did. Community sanctions aren't a fun area to volunteer: most people tend to show up when there's a particular case they care about, and depart in exhaustion afterward. Most of the things the community had come to believe when it dismantled the board were way off target--so much so that it was difficult to have any discussion at all. If I hadn't been boycotting IRC the whole time (then and now) then I may have been able to clear up the misconceptions in time. It was like looking at a reflection in a funhouse mirror, the things the consensus thought about the board. The problem with the disruptive editing guideline has never been fixed, btw. It's one of the reasons the community periodically sees huge drama-fests. Durova^Charge! 07:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

That's interesting. I must admit I took at face value the CSN MfD discussion. It wuld be good to hear the other side, as I'm sure some of those at the MfD would dispute what you said. Having said that, this is not the place to re-run the MfD. I agree about people needing to declare their involvement. I wrote that somewhere in the long section above that no-one commented on - I'm used to it, don't worry! :-) It seems that while a formal ban discussion venue would be helpful, some sort of limited noticeboard with threaded discussions would also be helpful. What is the best way forward from here? Carcharoth (talk) 01:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Not sure. To be candid, I think this site needs a much more proactive view regarding sanctions discussions generally. Take the community banning policy--very hazy. Different people have different views of what a community siteban actually is, and that tends to get played out in overheated discussions about particular individuals. We would have much more orderly proceedings if there were better standardization. For instance, how long is a reasonable time to wait before asking the community to review and lift a ban? Current policy and guideline is silent on that matter, which exposes us to politicking and gaming. It would not be too hard to draft up a standard schedule. Let's say, a default time span for review upon request after 6 months, adjustable downward as far as 3 months under positive circumstances (such as a good track record at a sister project and sponsorship/mentorship of an experienced Wikipedian in good standing) or upward in cases of persistent sockpuppetry, etc. The policy shortfalls are more important than venue issues. The most salient criticism of CSN was that it was a relatively low traffic board, and any way that MBisanz structures this proposal would be likely to duplicate that shortcoming. So--if I had to choose one or the other--I think it would do the site more good to do proactive work on the policy level and implement some kind of special template/separate archiving for long range analysis on its sanctions discussions and keep those discussions where they already are, than to migrate those discussions to a separate location again. Durova^Charge! 02:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

That's a good point about venue versus policy. I like the idea of a template to, I presume, track old discussions and build up a more easily accessible history (something similar is done, or was done, to track Reference Desk questions that were, or should be, used to improve articles). Maybe a "community sanction discussion" template to attach to threads anywhere? Well, maybe not quite anywhere (that might be too chaotic). But using templates to tag ANI and AN sections might help. Hey, we could even merge all the noticeboards back into one and just tag all the threads by topic and type. Hmm. Maybe not! But, then again... Carcharoth (talk) 03:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

That'd work. One of the principal things that spurred me to propose CSN in the first place was how chaotic the archiving is for AN and ANI. The search tools aren't necessarily effective even when you know what you're searching for. So when a past discussion had taken place, generally only the people who had posted would really remember what had taken place and only a smaller share of those would bother digging for it later on. That made the whole situation very gameable by people who were being disruptive and wanted to fly beneath the radar. Another thing worth considering is that sanctions discussions which don't result in an actual santion are worth keeping track of too, for long range analysis: are those discussions opened in good faith? Does the same individual later get discussed again and sanctioned? Durova^Charge! 03:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I am reading this, and thinking, and will try and respond later today, MBisanz ^talk 08:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Community discussion on role of bureaucrats

When we elect bureaucrats, we do so on a very specific purview. This move into dispute resolution is not what we elect bureaucrats for. There role at judging consensus at RfA is under fairly clear guidelines and there margin of discretion is relatively small. Judging consensus on ban discussions is something completely different, and I'm not sure that all the bureaucrats would be good at that (I acknowledge a lot would however). I just can't support this extension of the bureaucrats role - it's not what they're here for. If this was to go through and consensus about a ban isn't clear, then it should be left for arbcom to look at what the consensus of the community is. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 10:21, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Some good points. When I sat down to write this, I thought, "admins disagree a lot on what a ban consensus looks like, we'd suck at closing such discussions", I also thought how we've never had an RFA close overturned or a crat war, yet we've had lots of wheel wars and even a process for contesting bad admin decisions at DRV. So I needed another group to close these discussions. It seemed like Crats weigh consensus in close RFAs and are generally involved in the community, so they'd be good at reading consensus here. Lets say there are 40 people supporting a 6 month ban and 10 people opposing it, assuming all other factors are equal, I'd call that a consensus to ban, but I'm sure at least one of the 10 people opposing it would say there was no consensus. Or lets say we had two proposals, a 6 month topic ban with 50 people supporting and a 1 month edit ban with 60 people supporting. There would not be a conflict that something should be done, but there would be disagreement over what should be done. Having someone to close that discussion, and weigh details of the 110 comments would, IMO, be a good thing.

What would you think about leaving it to arbs and former arbs to close these discussions? They are selected for their jobs to judge what is best for the community based on its expression of viewpoints in Policy and at Workshops. I'm open to the idea of different people occupying the role, but I feel we do need someone to close these discussions to avoid conflicts over closure. MBisanz ^talk 12:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Im sorry but that doesnt sit well with me, it seems like the arbs are comming more like the community be all and end all, something im not entirely happy with. They make the call on RFAR's, dont let them make the call on Community dicussions too. Too much power in the one basket is a recipie for disaster and many people would claim foul.   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 12:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm unsure whether you're therefore agreeing that Crats should have this role, or disagreeing, or making no comment about Crats at all, merely Arbcom? It seems like the last of these three, but it'd be good if you clarified. --Dweller (talk) 12:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Arbs taking on extra power through them forming their own policies is a problem, potentially, but how is it a problem if the community gives them extra responsibility? ArbCom can already ban users, its not like this is a huge extension of their job description. Mr.Z-man 16:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Obvious cases - too much process?

I know that this proposal is due to some controversial recent cases and I obviously won't be commenting on those but what happens when the case is obvious? I'm thinking of User:Nixer, User:Jacob Peters, User:Iamandrewrice etc. Nixer was banned in something like 12 hours[1] and rightly so. Does this proposal mean that we have to go through 10 days of debating at RfC before a ban can be implemented regardless of the offense? That seems like a bit too much process to me. Sorry MBisanz for being critical of this, I just want to be sure what is decided here. EconomicsGuy (talk) 11:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm conflicted on how to deal with this sort of thing. Iamandrewrice was a big time sockpuppet abuser and I'm not sure there was anyone defending him. Everyday 100s of indefinite blocks are handed out by admins to vandalism-only accounts, sockpuppets, etc. Obviously those blocks will never be undone and don't need a process like this. On the other hand, where to draw the line of an indefinite block of an established contributor, I'm not sure. Saying something like "controversial indefinite blocks" will lead to people declaring a block is not controversial, etc. I guess at the point in time someone feels the need to document abuse at an RfC, since it would not be plainly obvious from a user's history or maybe because there are already overturned indefinite blocks, then this sort of process would be best. Any ideas? MBisanz ^talk 11:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

It could be handled the old fashioned way. If no one undoes the ban, then it can be considered to have community support. In other words this new process wouldn't become the only way to enact a ban, just a nice way to clean up the non obvious cases. As long as it is not mutually exclusive I think it is ok. - Taxman ^Talk 12:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Should we still file an RfB but have a varient of WP:SNOW apply for clearcut situations to avoid drgging it. if so who would make such a call?. Banning first and asking questions later is against most standards of morals, and is an excellent machine for making grawps   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 12:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Well it's never ban first and ask questions later unless it's so obvious it doesn't need discussion. Anything less would start with an indef block and then a discussion that it would be considered a ban. If it's really obvious at that point the consensus is for a ban, then there is no need for bureaucratic process, just consider it a ban. If consensus doesn't emerge immediately, then come here. Always use the least bureaucratic tool likely to get positive results. Remember we're here to write articles and nothing more. Everything else is just to support that and should be done with the minimum fuss. - Taxman ^Talk 14:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

That would work. I just want to be sure that we aren't creating a new way for disruptive editors to game the system. If an indef block sticks shouldn't that by definition be a community ban regardless of what the block summary says? If we use this process for non-obvious bans and then use it to review the obvious bans there would still be an open review of such bans. EconomicsGuy (talk) 12:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, if someone can be indef blocked with no non-frivolous complaints from the community, there's no reason to go through the extra process. There's no point in wasting time for anything except possibly an AN or ANI thread for obvious cases. Mr.Z-man 16:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit fuzzy on the concept of "if one admin imposes an indefinite block, and no one else undoes it." Isn't it the case that undoing another admin's block, is a violation of WP:WHEEL? Or am I missing a subtlety here? --Elonka 22:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, you are missing the part where another admin undoes it after a discussion on ANI where most of the commenters and other admins think the block was incorrect. pschemp | talk 03:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Yup, forgot to say that. You didn't use to have to, it would be assumed you'd discuss something before undoing it. - Taxman ^Talk 14:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, so better wording might be, "If one admin imposes an indefinite block, and no one challenges it"? --Elonka 18:26, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Well I didn't realize we were at the point of wording anything specific up, but you can't always count on no one challenging it, so if you were going to say something specific, better is to say "... and no one challenges it or reasonable consensus develops to make it a ban." Or alternatively "... and no consensus develops to overturn it." With either of those options you don't worry about gamesmanship and the will of the community is respected. - Taxman ^Talk 23:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I fully agree with Taxman here and just so there's no doubt about this I fully support this proposal as long as we agree on this. EconomicsGuy (talk) 15:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Bad idea

I dislike this idea very much. We shouldn't be banning people very often at all, and certainly don't need a new process page to do it on. I disagree totally with the section that says such bans can only be appealed to Arbcom or Jimmy Wales. What, exactly, happened to the community deciding issues like this? And what is wrong with using the admin noticeboard(s)? -- how do you turn this on 13:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I also completely disagree with bureaucrats/arbiters closing this. That is not what they were elected for. -- how do you turn this on 13:05, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

This is a community placed banning concept, so I fail to see how this is not the community deciding issues. Right now community bans are only appealable to Arbcom and Jimbo, so another non-change. The current noticeboards, as shown in the Sceptre, Steve Crossin, and Kmweber ban discussions usually result in rushed decisions that do not lead to a reasoned result, and given that Arbs already vote on bannings in RFARs and crats close difficult decisions at BAG and RFA, they seemed like natural consensus interpreters. MBisanz ^talk 21:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Negative. In this proposal, the community will no say in undoing a ban do they? Also, community bans are appealable to the community, despite your claim otherwise. Thus, I don't see why arbcom or Jimbo should have any say in the matter. When you say result, what do you mean? An end tally? Is this just going to be like an RfA, except the end result is banned/not banned? We have arbs voting on cases the community cannot decide on (arbcom being the last phase in DR process), and have no place in closing other community discussions. Any admin should be able to close a discussion (I say admin because they are trusted to close the most difficult areas, AFDs). BAG and RfA are not difficult decisions (unless of course the bcrat doesn't have access to a calculator and is rubbish at math). -- how do you turn this on 21:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, I thought the section #Requests for ban alteration makes it clear this is still a community driven process if unbanned members of the community feel an issue is worth revisiting. Also end results will vary greatly, from a person being banned from editing a single page, a namespace, not being banned at all, or being banned from all editing. The closing person will be expected to not vote count (hence there is not suggested %) and instead interpret the consensus based on the comments in each ban proposal. MBisanz ^talk 21:23, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Quote: "A request for alteration of a ban may be filed by any user after one-half the period of ban has elapsed, or in the case of an indefinite ban, after six months have elapsed." That isn't good enough. Why are you trying to prevent a mistake being fixed? -- how do you turn this on 21:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Well after 20 days of deliberation, my thought was it is unlikely a mistake would have been made such that a review would need to be immediately requested. MBisanz ^talk 21:46, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair point, but my other points I raised are still unaddressed. -- how do you turn this on 21:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Most of your points are already answered in the page. That's most likely why you didn't get much response. You just stated your objections without considering the information that had already been discussed. AN/I isn't well suited to a rational well thought out, and especially extended conversation that can judge community consensus. That we shouldn't be banning people often, of course, so if the page isn't used much fine, if it is, then it is even more needed. Either way it's not a problem. I think the community being the decision makers has been covered. The other one is who judges the consensus. If you don't want bcrats or arbcom to do it, who would you want? It's again not a large problem to the process. There are two groups that already have to face high scrutiny to see if they are trusted by the community so many people feel either are natural choices. If you don't, fine, that can be addressed and we can find a consensus. - Taxman ^Talk 13:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

No I disagree they have high scrutiny. Some bureaucrats were elected in 2004, with maybe 10 votes, and haven't even performed one bureaucrat action. Do we trust them? I don't really. The same goes for arbitrators - ones that were elected a long time ago aren't necessarily as trustworthy in that position any longer, and were voted in with a much lower percentage than is required for adminship - and this again was 2005. I'm not saying this is the case for all of them, but the fact is, it's a lot. What about the admins who close difficult AFD discussions? Why could they not close them? Admins were voted in for good judgement and ability to determine consensus, just like bureaucrats. I trust more plain-old admins than I do bureaucrats and arbitrators frankly, and think a neutral admin can close the discussion. That really is my main issue here. -- how do you turn this on 14:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, again we can go with what the consensus comes up with. Specifically though I fail to see your logic that if some bcrats weren't scrutinized to your liking that it is better to open it up to all admins that may have had even less scrutiny and we will somehow have a more trusted group. Remember all bcrats are admins and as far as I recall all arbiters have been too. All are currently. Also admins are not evaluated specifically for their ability to judge consensus as bcrats are. Of course I say this as a bcrat and I've gone through both processes, so here's the grain of salt to take with these comments. . - Taxman ^Talk 15:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

the fundamental reasons for trying to do something is that on the one had AN/I is too chaotic a procedure, while on the other, we don't trust arb com. DGG (talk) 01:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Your Attention is requested

You have made very constructive comments regarding 'banning' process. Your kind attention is requested (here). If needed incidents will be quoted where ethics are violated. Thanks. 75.55.49.63 (talk) 08:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)