Wikipedia:Community ban discussions
 | This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference. Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump. |
In the event that a user exhausts the patience of the community, an admin may state their intention to indefinitely block them. However, to ensure that the community is fine with this, they may start a community ban discussion where users may voice their opinion. This system is more or less intended to replace the Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard as a place for discussing bans.
Process
[edit]Community ban discussions can take place either as a subpage of this page or where discussion was initially started. If the discussion was started at a place like Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, it should be moved over to a subpage of this page (and removed there). Before discussion on a community ban discussion can take place, the user must have been informed of the discussion taking place.
To begin a discussion, tag the page with {{active ban discussion}}, or {{abd}}, where a bot will list the page on a list of active ban discussions. This list can be transcluded in multiple places, such as Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, and can be added to users' watchlists to keep track of new cases. These discussions should be formatted in the following one: a very short statement (if it's longer than a paragraph, then it should be truncated), listing of evidence that the user is persistently violating policies (with links to diffs, otherwise the evidence can be removed at any time), and discussions on the talk page when applicable. If five users in good standing endorse the ban, then the user is banned, but if three users oppose, then the ban does not occur. This does not preclude someone being banned; ban discussions can always be held on the administrators' noticeboard.
Caveats
[edit]- Bulleted support/oppose statements are not allowed in discussion. If someone makes such a statement, it can be removed or converted to a non-bulleted support/oppose statement summarily. There should be a visible warning about this.
- Speedy closes may take place for obvious cases, such as a vandal account being nominated or an obviously bad faith nomination. Use discretion when doing this! If a user disagrees with a speedy close, they can bring it up with the closer and the discussion may be re-opened.
- If moving a discussion over from WP:ANI or similar long discussion pages, be sure to replace the discussion there with a note indicating that the discussion has moved.
Benefits
[edit]- The community sanction noticeboard has been criticized for being a low-activity page that is frequented by few people. By converting it into a list of active discussions that can be posted on relevant community pages, wider attention is achieved.
- If speedy closes are misguided, they can easily be undone.
- Bulleted voting during discussion is forbidden, as it is widely seen as voting. The use of the community sanction noticeboard as a "votes for banning" page has led to much criticism.
- This page advises to ensure that discussion is kept uniform.