Wikipedia talk:Community sanction/Log

This conversation copied from the Admin Noticeboard.

Community Probations?

This is something that came up at WP:TE (and I don't have anyone in particular in mind, just the general idea)... we've got the occasional community ban sometimes discussed on this noticeboard. So how would people feel about community probation? It's a bit like ArbCom probation - the intent is to allow us a lightweight way to tell User:Some User to stay away from Some Article for the next month or so. This would be useful if that Someone was in general a useful editor but is going bonkers on one particular subject. Radiant! 17:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

What is WP:TE? More granular community remedies (probations, paroles, article and topical bans, etc) are going to happen sooner rather than later. We're just waiting for a suitable test case. --Tony Sidaway 18:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, I tried a community probation (on releasing an indefblock) with an editor back in May 2006 that ended up badly (editor is currently again indefblocked) but there wasn't any specific articles that they were banned from as conditions of it. Syrthiss 18:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. We can already do community bans; community probations and community article bans are actually less severe, and could help to keep around good editors who are just incapable of NPOV on a certain narrow topic range. --Cyde Weys 18:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

This is already possible. Here's how it works: Admin sees Problem User disrupting an article. Admin tells Problem User to stop disruption. Perfect world: Problem User stops disrupting. Real world: Problem User continues. Admin blocks Problem User. Admin makes offer to Problem User: "stop editing that article and you'll be unblocked". This happens regularly and we don't need to formalise it. If we can avoid formalising, we do. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 18:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The only problem is making it stick. Mackensen (talk) 18:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• We don't need a separate policy, it can be included in the blocking or banning policy. A little support of the arbcom in this would probably help. If they support it, there's no need to go to RFAr. I would restrict executing probations to uninvolved admins, after multiple users (unrelated to the subject) have shown they believe the user's editing to be tendentious. Perhaps following an RFC? - Mgm|^(talk) 22:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

It's clue-based adminship, and I'm all for it. No need to write it down, we know that some people are OK as long as they avoid some subjects, and some people should be politely shown the door. It's only when it's ambiguous that we need ArbCom. The current Arbustoo / Vivaldi dispute, and the Sathya Sai Baba dispute, are good examples: it's not open and shut, and many good-faith edits are involved. The project is pretty mature now, some people are arriving with the intent of causing trouble, and we can see them a mile off. Guy 22:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Something along these lines was proposed by User:Bishonen regarding a user posting on WP:ANI. There was a consensus to ban a user from posting to ANI for a period of time. I don't see why this same logic couldn't be applied elsewhere. (→Netscott) 23:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

She also banned someone from WP:FAC and subpages for a while once. She is a rogue admin and/or ahead of her time. Obviously this is something we can do. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe community-based probations and community-approved compulsory mentorship is a good thing. In my opinion it maybe useful for such users as User:SuperDeng, User:Molobo, User:Nixer etc. as an alternative to the long blocks and permabans. abakharev 23:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd say a log page would be nice, since the admin noticeboard is friggin' huge. There is probably something to be said for protecting the page permanently. >Radiant< 22:48, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Radiant for starting the log. I added Mccready's community topic article ban. Also protected the page. --FloNight 00:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

How about a separate log page?

I'm not an admin... at any rate, it strikes me as unfortunate that the page is protected. If the intent is to keep problem editors from deleting themselves from a log of editors on community probation, may I suggest that a separate page such as Wikipedia:Log of users on community probation be created and protected; and that this page be unprotected (as is generally the custom with pages describing policy)?

Also, perhaps this page should be marked as {{policy}}, or at least as a {{guideline}}? Since it can be inferred from existing policy here; I see no issue with the administrators' corps declaring it such.

Also, the I'd not that the link to WP:TE above is incorrect (that points to an old essay); the correct place where this was recently discussed is Wikipedia:Tendentious editors, a draft policy which is in progress (and getting ready for wider community discussion).

Just my 2 yen...

--EngineerScotty 19:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• Good point... however at this moment this is the log page and there isn't really a page describing the policy/guideline. Maybe there should be one? Please discuss at WP:AN. Oh and yes, the intent for that is both to prevent users from removing themselves, and non-admins from adding other users. By the way I've bounced WP:TE to the present proposal, per your suggestion. >Radiant< 19:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• I've just added one: Wikipedia:Community probation/Proposal. My expectation is that if that proposal is approved, it would go here, and the log of such actions would go elsewhere. I'll mention this at WP:VP and WP:AN. --EngineerScotty 23:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• There is no need to keep the log protected. We don't keep arb enforcement logs protected for example. If someone attempts to maliciously modify the list that can be dealt with. JoshuaZ 03:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, Wikipedia:List of protected pages is semi'd. *shrug* Though I also don't see a need for non-admins to edit the log. --Interiot 04:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I second the shrug. It's no big deal really. I should point out, however, that the philosophy that everyone should be able to edit everything applies to the improvement of encyclopedic content and is less applicable in Wikispace. Nevertheless, shrug. >Radiant< 16:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Better title?

The word Community is quite ambiguous to the non-administrator. It focuses on the bureaucratic issue that members of the community informally decide that a person should cease editing a topic for a while. Instead of this concern with the infromal decision process, the title should stress that this article concerns suspension or banning from particular topics.

I'd suggest something like Topical probation, even though that reads like topical application of sunscreen : ). --SteveMcCluskey 18:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps your title is too narrow. Let's keep it loose for awhile. Community probation has been used in limited ways in the past such as stopping an user from commenting on AN/I for awhile. --FloNight 18:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Tricky. The wording is akin to "community ban". "Topical probation" implies a probation on a topic, or imposed by a topic (at least, to me). Better suggestions welcome, of course. >Radiant< 21:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• • One suggestion: Call it Community sanctions, and rewrite to include the practice of community-banning, which is described (briefly) on WP:BAN but nowhere else. --EngineerScotty 21:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I like the idea of Community sanctions as a title. It gives a clear idea what it is about, but is still open enough to encompass lots of circumstances. Johntex\^talk 16:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Changes

Renamed to reflect new name of policy and the way it is used as a log. FloNight 16:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• There are still some changes to the text which ought to be made--the text should refer to the new policy rather than repeat the material. I'd fix it myself, but the page is protected and I'm not an admin... I still vote, BTW, for unprotecting this unless it becomes apparent that sanctioned users or others start messing with it. --EngineerScotty 23:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Better now? :) >Radiant< 10:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Historical?

Would anyone object if this was tagged as historical per the main proposal? Addhoc 22:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

It may be time to undo that, and or merge/streamline with Wikipedia:Community_noticeboard, see [1] and Wikipedia_talk:Community_noticeboard#Logging_long_running_sanctions_for_reference. not sure where best to discuss. ++Lar: t/c 21:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)