- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. I don't think it's premature to close this deletion debate on the delete side at this point. I note my surprise that the author did not attempt to facilitate a discussion prior to creating this noticeboard, seeing how it bares some important similarities to CSN, which was only deleted a few days ago. That should have been taken into account.
El_C 07:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Struck out. Discussion was attempted. See my note
here. My apologies to
Jehochman for overlooking it. Deletion stands, however.
El_C 15:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Also, feel free to make use of the undeleted project talk page. El_C 16:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Disruptive editing/Noticeboard
It's baaack. After only five days since deletion, the Community Sanction Noticeboard has reappeared. It was proposed on WP:AN and sprang back to life a few hours later. A tiny hint has been made that it's not the same thing, although obviously it is, so I've brought it back here rather than just deleting it. We had so much fun last time, we can do it again. ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 08:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete a combination of the defunct WP:PAIN and WP:CN, both of which are shut down. Viridae Talk 08:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Nuke with prejudice. Shit, can't this be speedied? - Jéské( v^_^v) 08:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep for an Experimental Phase, and then Re-evaluate - As advertised, this board is for discussing the application of the disruptive editing guideline to specific cases. We have WP:COIN to discuss specific applications of WP:COI. We have WP:BLPN to discuss cases of WP:BLP. We have WP:RSN to discuss WP:RS. Shall we delete all those too? Many editors are confused about how to apply guidelines to real situations so it's useful to have a place where we can talk about these situations. Unlike WP:CSN, the deletion of which I supported, this board does not have the special power to ban editors. - Jehochman Talk 11:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- ... and we have WP:RfC for discussing editor behaviour and WP:ANI for when things get out of hand. So far, this is WP:CSN without any powers. So add pointless to the list of reasons to delete. Also, have you looked at the one community sanction case the new board has got? It is already suffering from some of the problems WP:CSN had; it overlaps WP:RfC, WP:COIN, WP:ANI and seems designed to be a pillory on which to put editors in order that others can throw things at them. Just like WP:CSN. This is Not Good. ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 11:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Amusing comparison though :)
Viridae
Talk 12:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Shall we delete the other specialize noticeboards and take all those cases to RfC and ANI too? There's nothing special about the
WP:DE guideline. It's the same as the others that have boards. Why the bias here? -
Jehochman
Talk 12:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- No. Nobody is arguing that there is anything wrong with the BLP noticeboard or 3rr noticeboard or reliable sources noticeboard. They serve a constructive purpose of keeping
WP:AN/I from getting too crowded. What we are saying is the community sanction, which results in a user potentially getting indefinently blocked, should face the largest audience possible on wikipedia to make a decision, and that is achieved more through
WP:AN/I than through other noticeboards, as most policy violations are reported to
WP:AN/I. Our concern is this disruptive editing noticeboard looks very similar to the CSN in purpose, an nobody really has explained how they are different, so it contains the sampe problems.
Yahel
Guhan 00:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- This board isn't for discussing community sanctions. That's specifically forbidden. Read the darn charter before opposing it. This board would serve the same good purposes as COIN, BLPN, RSN of keeping ANI from becoming overcrowded. It helps to sort complaints by topic and deal with them carefully, rather than lumping them all together in one big bucket of slop. - Jehochman Talk 02:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- No. Nobody is arguing that there is anything wrong with the BLP noticeboard or 3rr noticeboard or reliable sources noticeboard. They serve a constructive purpose of keeping
WP:AN/I from getting too crowded. What we are saying is the community sanction, which results in a user potentially getting indefinently blocked, should face the largest audience possible on wikipedia to make a decision, and that is achieved more through
WP:AN/I than through other noticeboards, as most policy violations are reported to
WP:AN/I. Our concern is this disruptive editing noticeboard looks very similar to the CSN in purpose, an nobody really has explained how they are different, so it contains the sampe problems.
Yahel
Guhan 00:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- Shall we delete the other specialize noticeboards and take all those cases to RfC and ANI too? There's nothing special about the
WP:DE guideline. It's the same as the others that have boards. Why the bias here? -
Jehochman
Talk 12:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, identical to CSN in essence, except without the powers (so even less useful). Neil ☎ 12:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: would the nominator please rephrase the reasons for deletion. Perhaps a simple list of them, to which pointless can be added (if justifiable). I am interested in contributing to a discussion of this, but the language is a little... well, the word for it is above. Cygnis insignis 12:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- [A list has been placed on] the talk page. ➔ REDVEЯS is now wearing pants again 12:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Please, for the love of God, are we so bored that we have to troll ourselves like this on a weekly basis? EconomicsGuy 16:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete It's CSN. If there is a need for yet another noticeboard, it should go up after some discussion- this seems hasty and ill-defined. And I really don't like the fact that a large part of the first "case" consists of an editor being criticised for expressing opinions on his talk page. Is this the sort of "disruption" that the board wants to stamp out? Lurker ( said · done) 16:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete It's PAIN all over again. east. 718 at 17:01, 10/16/2007
- Delete I guess I'd call it "noticeboard creep." I didn't immediately see the association to CSN, but I think we already have processes in place to deal w/ disruptive editing.
Shalom (
Hello •
Peace) 18:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- But not adequate processes to deal with long-term disruption. Admins can block vandals on sight, but can't (and shouldn't) make complex value judgments in dealing with longer-term disruptive contributors. ArbCom is way too slow and bureaucratic to deal with such problems. Where community input is needed, this noticeboard is a good solution. Walton One 19:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Redirect to WP:AN/I (if feeling nice), Just plain tag "nope", or Delete (if particularly cranky). WP:PAIN didn't fly, WP:CSN didn't fly, and people don't have the attention to follow bazillion noticeboards to provide the necessary input. Sorry guys, I don't think this will fly. -- wwwwolf ( barks/ growls) 19:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep. The fact that a discussion is already taking place there shows that there is a genuine need for this kind of noticeboard; it's not redundant. There is a clear need for a noticeboard in which the community can rule on disruptive editors. As I note above, this is for those cases which are too complex and long-term to simply be handled by a single admin, but need the opportunity for binding sanctions to be issued. Walton One 19:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- That single discussion is one where the user is catching hell for what they've got on their talk page. WP:CSN at its worst. There may be a "clear need" for another noticeboard (I don't agree, obviously, but can be convinced to !vote for the creation of one) but there's no evidence this is it; there's no evidence this is anything but a pillory. "[We] need the opportunity for binding sanctions to be issued" - the board has already said it doesn't have and won't use enforcement powers. So there are no binding sanctions available anyway. ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 19:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- A single discussion, started by the same person who created the page, is not evidence that there's a need for the board. – Steel 22:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as a lipstick-on-a-pig recreation of CSN. No other rationale should be necessary, really. Tarc 20:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete recreation of
WP:CSN. Don't see the difference.
Yahel
Guhan 00:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- This board isn't for discussing community sanctions. Therefore, it is not the same as WP:CSN. Saying so is just poisoning the well. This is a talk page associated with a guideline. That's it. A central place to talk and clarify the application of a guideline to specific cases. What really bothers me is that the people opposing this don't seem to spend much time dealing with disruptive editors. It's not nice to sit on the sidelines and throw rotten tomatoes at hardworking volunteers who do a difficult job. The least you could do is consider the proposal and ask questions before making a snap judgement. - Jehochman Talk 02:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- This board isn't for discussing community sanctions. Well who gets sanctioned from wikipedia? The purpose of the community sanction noticeboard was to ban disruptive editors through consensus of the wikipedia comminity.
WP:DE has a nutshell template that makes the application perfectly clear at the top of the page: Obvious cranks and disruptive editors may be blocked indefinitely by admins, or banned by ArbCom or by a consensus of Wikipedians. In other words, disruptive editing may result in community sanction, so how is it not the same? It is a talk page associated with a guideline- a guideline that describes conditions which may lead to community sanctions.
Yahel
Guhan 03:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- That's a valid point. What if we make clear that any indef blocks for disruptive editing must be reported at WP:ANI for community review? Those few cases need to go to ANI, but this board would be a better way to deal with the much larger number of complaints that are either unfounded or resolved by patient discussion. Obviously, the best result in any case is to convince the editor to stop acting like a dick, rather than having to block or ban them. My concern is that ANI is so crowded and fast moving that cases there aren't given careful consideration, resulting in trolls running free and salvageable editors getting blocked. - Jehochman Talk 03:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- This board isn't for discussing community sanctions. Well who gets sanctioned from wikipedia? The purpose of the community sanction noticeboard was to ban disruptive editors through consensus of the wikipedia comminity.
WP:DE has a nutshell template that makes the application perfectly clear at the top of the page: Obvious cranks and disruptive editors may be blocked indefinitely by admins, or banned by ArbCom or by a consensus of Wikipedians. In other words, disruptive editing may result in community sanction, so how is it not the same? It is a talk page associated with a guideline- a guideline that describes conditions which may lead to community sanctions.
Yahel
Guhan 03:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete—Everything's been said already. Jonathan talk \ contribs — er 02:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete It was created with very little discussion and doesn't seem to have any community backing. I don't think the exposure this is likely to get will make it very useful...when/if we need something like this it will develop a little more organically than just creating one out of thin air without any real discussion. RxS 04:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete It's a mockery of process to create such a thing with no discussion, and appears to meet CSD:G4 "Recreation of deleted material. A copy, by any title, of a page deleted via a deletion discussion, provided the copy is substantially identical to the deleted version and that any changes in the recreated page do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted." < eleland/ talk edits> 05:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep. It is not a replication of a previous noticeboard and may need a few weeks or a month or two to prove its value in addressing WP:DE. — Athaenara ✉ 05:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment.] As Jehochman pointed out, it's not the same as
WP:CSN. People who think that should read the page again. However, it says that it is for determining "how to apply
WP:DE to specific situations". I think that discussion about the applicability of
WP:DE can be discussed at
WT:DE. If it is for looking for some outside opinions on a dispute to handle disruptive editors, then it's basically the same as
WP:RFCC. If it's looking for "community consensus" to proclaim an editor as disruptive (and then ban them), then it's basically
WP:CSN in disguise. If it's a discussion about whether an editor is disruptive or not so that admins can then take the necessary action, it's redundant to
WP:ANI. My question is: what does this noticeboard accomplish that other noticeboards don't? I think it's a little redundant, to be honest, since
WP:BLPN,
WP:RSN etc are about article content, and this is about editor conduct. Thoughts?
Melsaran (
talk) 09:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- Melsaran, good analysis. There are important, additional cases: (1) A discussion with an editor who is potentially being disruptive can resolve the situation without the need for blocks. This is what happened with Fredsmith2. This board is a good place to nip small problems in the bud before they become big problems and waste lots of time. ANI is a good place to go when somebody needs a block, but terrible for subtle or ambiguous cases. If I brought the Fredsmith2 case over to ANI, he might have gotten blocked; I'm happy to have avoided that. (2) Joe Average editor is being harassed by a clever troll who knows how to game the system. Joe doesn't know how to investigate or present a case, but the troll is an expert at manipulating ANI discussions. This board is a place where Joe can get detailed, ongoing advice about how to take care of his troll. At ANI, cases are typically archived within two days. That doesn't serve Joe's need. Thanks for considering this. - Jehochman Talk 12:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - combines the worst features of WP:PAIN and WP:CSN without any of the positive benefits - blocking trolls for example. Addhoc 10:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. I always felt like CSN was a really bad idea. And I still do. It's better handled on AN or AN/I. Just no reason for what's essentially a fork. -- Woohookitty Woohoo! 11:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep for now, after Jehochman's reply to my comment above, I think we can give this noticeboard a chance. It looks like it has a valid purpose. If it turns out within a few months from now that it will suffer the same fate as CSN then it can be nominated again.
Melsaran (
talk) 12:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- Per discussion at WP:AN Melsaran was blocked for sockpuppetry, so the above comment should be considered accordingly. - Jehochman Talk 16:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Honestly, didn't we just finish this debate? ^ demon [omg plz] 13:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete with prejudice. Votes for Banning is never going to fly, as CSN showed us. In this case, it's Votes For people we really, really want to ban, but can't, because they took CSN away from us. The principal remains the same. - M ask? 17:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep for a while to see how it goes, it is not redundant, give this noticeboard a chance.-- Dseer 04:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: Several claims of a resemblance which doesn't exist illustrate a need to point out that WP:DE/N is structured on the model of WP:BLP/N and WP:COI/N, not on the model of WP:CSN or WP:PAIN. — Athaenara ✉ 04:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment It is possible that this board could evolve into a board for questionable disruptive editing that do not involve long blocks. If so, such board would be different from CSN. Archtransit 15:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Since this page was created without any real discussion very recently, I think the burden here is on supporters to show there's general consensus for it's inclusion. It'd be different if it was a long term page that someone thought had outlived it usefulness, but this page has never had consensus behind it. I say this because at this point it's clear that no consensus exists for it, and while that's the case it's not going to be very effective.
RxS 15:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- This MfD is rational discussion from which a consensus may emerge. The delete comments above rely exclusively on the false assumption that this is the same as PAIN or CSN. To delete the page, there need to be logical reasons, not gut feelings. I think the support comments, though fewer in number, are much stronger in logic, because they clearly show that this is not a re-creation of those failed boards. - Jehochman Talk 16:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- A troll's job is to be disruptive in novel ways. Many times an editor will see behavior that looks like trolling, but isn't certain. A central place where we can discuss suspected cases will help us avoid biting the newbies This board is also a place to politely tell people when they need to stop being disruptive. When that fails, we can go to ANI to request community sanctions. - Jehochman Talk 16:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - this seems like an unnecessary side-step before / in replace of an editor RFC. There is a noticeably strong resemblance to WP:CSN as well and after all the problems that occurred on that board, its proven that a system like that won't work out at the moment. ¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 18:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: The problem with "an editor RFC" (I presume you mean Requests for comment/User conduct) is that it is process-heavy (see Avoid instruction creep), set up such that issues cannot simply be posted there briefly and succinctly. — Athaenara ✉ 22:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep How can anyone say it will not be useful at this early a stage? Done right, this will address a different sort of problem. there's many ways to go about improving WP processes, and we should keep trying. I don't know if I really like an additional venue to keep track of, but let's see if it will be worth it. DGG ( talk) 01:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per above, nothing more to say. Tim Q. Wells 04:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. I don't think it's premature to close this deletion debate on the delete side at this point. I note my surprise that the author did not attempt to facilitate a discussion prior to creating this noticeboard, seeing how it bares some important similarities to CSN, which was only deleted a few days ago. That should have been taken into account.
El_C 07:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Struck out. Discussion was attempted. See my note
here. My apologies to
Jehochman for overlooking it. Deletion stands, however.
El_C 15:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Also, feel free to make use of the undeleted project talk page. El_C 16:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Disruptive editing/Noticeboard
It's baaack. After only five days since deletion, the Community Sanction Noticeboard has reappeared. It was proposed on WP:AN and sprang back to life a few hours later. A tiny hint has been made that it's not the same thing, although obviously it is, so I've brought it back here rather than just deleting it. We had so much fun last time, we can do it again. ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 08:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete a combination of the defunct WP:PAIN and WP:CN, both of which are shut down. Viridae Talk 08:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Nuke with prejudice. Shit, can't this be speedied? - Jéské( v^_^v) 08:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep for an Experimental Phase, and then Re-evaluate - As advertised, this board is for discussing the application of the disruptive editing guideline to specific cases. We have WP:COIN to discuss specific applications of WP:COI. We have WP:BLPN to discuss cases of WP:BLP. We have WP:RSN to discuss WP:RS. Shall we delete all those too? Many editors are confused about how to apply guidelines to real situations so it's useful to have a place where we can talk about these situations. Unlike WP:CSN, the deletion of which I supported, this board does not have the special power to ban editors. - Jehochman Talk 11:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- ... and we have WP:RfC for discussing editor behaviour and WP:ANI for when things get out of hand. So far, this is WP:CSN without any powers. So add pointless to the list of reasons to delete. Also, have you looked at the one community sanction case the new board has got? It is already suffering from some of the problems WP:CSN had; it overlaps WP:RfC, WP:COIN, WP:ANI and seems designed to be a pillory on which to put editors in order that others can throw things at them. Just like WP:CSN. This is Not Good. ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 11:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Amusing comparison though :)
Viridae
Talk 12:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Shall we delete the other specialize noticeboards and take all those cases to RfC and ANI too? There's nothing special about the
WP:DE guideline. It's the same as the others that have boards. Why the bias here? -
Jehochman
Talk 12:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- No. Nobody is arguing that there is anything wrong with the BLP noticeboard or 3rr noticeboard or reliable sources noticeboard. They serve a constructive purpose of keeping
WP:AN/I from getting too crowded. What we are saying is the community sanction, which results in a user potentially getting indefinently blocked, should face the largest audience possible on wikipedia to make a decision, and that is achieved more through
WP:AN/I than through other noticeboards, as most policy violations are reported to
WP:AN/I. Our concern is this disruptive editing noticeboard looks very similar to the CSN in purpose, an nobody really has explained how they are different, so it contains the sampe problems.
Yahel
Guhan 00:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- This board isn't for discussing community sanctions. That's specifically forbidden. Read the darn charter before opposing it. This board would serve the same good purposes as COIN, BLPN, RSN of keeping ANI from becoming overcrowded. It helps to sort complaints by topic and deal with them carefully, rather than lumping them all together in one big bucket of slop. - Jehochman Talk 02:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- No. Nobody is arguing that there is anything wrong with the BLP noticeboard or 3rr noticeboard or reliable sources noticeboard. They serve a constructive purpose of keeping
WP:AN/I from getting too crowded. What we are saying is the community sanction, which results in a user potentially getting indefinently blocked, should face the largest audience possible on wikipedia to make a decision, and that is achieved more through
WP:AN/I than through other noticeboards, as most policy violations are reported to
WP:AN/I. Our concern is this disruptive editing noticeboard looks very similar to the CSN in purpose, an nobody really has explained how they are different, so it contains the sampe problems.
Yahel
Guhan 00:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- Shall we delete the other specialize noticeboards and take all those cases to RfC and ANI too? There's nothing special about the
WP:DE guideline. It's the same as the others that have boards. Why the bias here? -
Jehochman
Talk 12:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, identical to CSN in essence, except without the powers (so even less useful). Neil ☎ 12:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: would the nominator please rephrase the reasons for deletion. Perhaps a simple list of them, to which pointless can be added (if justifiable). I am interested in contributing to a discussion of this, but the language is a little... well, the word for it is above. Cygnis insignis 12:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- [A list has been placed on] the talk page. ➔ REDVEЯS is now wearing pants again 12:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Please, for the love of God, are we so bored that we have to troll ourselves like this on a weekly basis? EconomicsGuy 16:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete It's CSN. If there is a need for yet another noticeboard, it should go up after some discussion- this seems hasty and ill-defined. And I really don't like the fact that a large part of the first "case" consists of an editor being criticised for expressing opinions on his talk page. Is this the sort of "disruption" that the board wants to stamp out? Lurker ( said · done) 16:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete It's PAIN all over again. east. 718 at 17:01, 10/16/2007
- Delete I guess I'd call it "noticeboard creep." I didn't immediately see the association to CSN, but I think we already have processes in place to deal w/ disruptive editing.
Shalom (
Hello •
Peace) 18:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- But not adequate processes to deal with long-term disruption. Admins can block vandals on sight, but can't (and shouldn't) make complex value judgments in dealing with longer-term disruptive contributors. ArbCom is way too slow and bureaucratic to deal with such problems. Where community input is needed, this noticeboard is a good solution. Walton One 19:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Redirect to WP:AN/I (if feeling nice), Just plain tag "nope", or Delete (if particularly cranky). WP:PAIN didn't fly, WP:CSN didn't fly, and people don't have the attention to follow bazillion noticeboards to provide the necessary input. Sorry guys, I don't think this will fly. -- wwwwolf ( barks/ growls) 19:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep. The fact that a discussion is already taking place there shows that there is a genuine need for this kind of noticeboard; it's not redundant. There is a clear need for a noticeboard in which the community can rule on disruptive editors. As I note above, this is for those cases which are too complex and long-term to simply be handled by a single admin, but need the opportunity for binding sanctions to be issued. Walton One 19:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- That single discussion is one where the user is catching hell for what they've got on their talk page. WP:CSN at its worst. There may be a "clear need" for another noticeboard (I don't agree, obviously, but can be convinced to !vote for the creation of one) but there's no evidence this is it; there's no evidence this is anything but a pillory. "[We] need the opportunity for binding sanctions to be issued" - the board has already said it doesn't have and won't use enforcement powers. So there are no binding sanctions available anyway. ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 19:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- A single discussion, started by the same person who created the page, is not evidence that there's a need for the board. – Steel 22:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as a lipstick-on-a-pig recreation of CSN. No other rationale should be necessary, really. Tarc 20:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete recreation of
WP:CSN. Don't see the difference.
Yahel
Guhan 00:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- This board isn't for discussing community sanctions. Therefore, it is not the same as WP:CSN. Saying so is just poisoning the well. This is a talk page associated with a guideline. That's it. A central place to talk and clarify the application of a guideline to specific cases. What really bothers me is that the people opposing this don't seem to spend much time dealing with disruptive editors. It's not nice to sit on the sidelines and throw rotten tomatoes at hardworking volunteers who do a difficult job. The least you could do is consider the proposal and ask questions before making a snap judgement. - Jehochman Talk 02:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- This board isn't for discussing community sanctions. Well who gets sanctioned from wikipedia? The purpose of the community sanction noticeboard was to ban disruptive editors through consensus of the wikipedia comminity.
WP:DE has a nutshell template that makes the application perfectly clear at the top of the page: Obvious cranks and disruptive editors may be blocked indefinitely by admins, or banned by ArbCom or by a consensus of Wikipedians. In other words, disruptive editing may result in community sanction, so how is it not the same? It is a talk page associated with a guideline- a guideline that describes conditions which may lead to community sanctions.
Yahel
Guhan 03:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- That's a valid point. What if we make clear that any indef blocks for disruptive editing must be reported at WP:ANI for community review? Those few cases need to go to ANI, but this board would be a better way to deal with the much larger number of complaints that are either unfounded or resolved by patient discussion. Obviously, the best result in any case is to convince the editor to stop acting like a dick, rather than having to block or ban them. My concern is that ANI is so crowded and fast moving that cases there aren't given careful consideration, resulting in trolls running free and salvageable editors getting blocked. - Jehochman Talk 03:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- This board isn't for discussing community sanctions. Well who gets sanctioned from wikipedia? The purpose of the community sanction noticeboard was to ban disruptive editors through consensus of the wikipedia comminity.
WP:DE has a nutshell template that makes the application perfectly clear at the top of the page: Obvious cranks and disruptive editors may be blocked indefinitely by admins, or banned by ArbCom or by a consensus of Wikipedians. In other words, disruptive editing may result in community sanction, so how is it not the same? It is a talk page associated with a guideline- a guideline that describes conditions which may lead to community sanctions.
Yahel
Guhan 03:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete—Everything's been said already. Jonathan talk \ contribs — er 02:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete It was created with very little discussion and doesn't seem to have any community backing. I don't think the exposure this is likely to get will make it very useful...when/if we need something like this it will develop a little more organically than just creating one out of thin air without any real discussion. RxS 04:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete It's a mockery of process to create such a thing with no discussion, and appears to meet CSD:G4 "Recreation of deleted material. A copy, by any title, of a page deleted via a deletion discussion, provided the copy is substantially identical to the deleted version and that any changes in the recreated page do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted." < eleland/ talk edits> 05:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep. It is not a replication of a previous noticeboard and may need a few weeks or a month or two to prove its value in addressing WP:DE. — Athaenara ✉ 05:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment.] As Jehochman pointed out, it's not the same as
WP:CSN. People who think that should read the page again. However, it says that it is for determining "how to apply
WP:DE to specific situations". I think that discussion about the applicability of
WP:DE can be discussed at
WT:DE. If it is for looking for some outside opinions on a dispute to handle disruptive editors, then it's basically the same as
WP:RFCC. If it's looking for "community consensus" to proclaim an editor as disruptive (and then ban them), then it's basically
WP:CSN in disguise. If it's a discussion about whether an editor is disruptive or not so that admins can then take the necessary action, it's redundant to
WP:ANI. My question is: what does this noticeboard accomplish that other noticeboards don't? I think it's a little redundant, to be honest, since
WP:BLPN,
WP:RSN etc are about article content, and this is about editor conduct. Thoughts?
Melsaran (
talk) 09:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- Melsaran, good analysis. There are important, additional cases: (1) A discussion with an editor who is potentially being disruptive can resolve the situation without the need for blocks. This is what happened with Fredsmith2. This board is a good place to nip small problems in the bud before they become big problems and waste lots of time. ANI is a good place to go when somebody needs a block, but terrible for subtle or ambiguous cases. If I brought the Fredsmith2 case over to ANI, he might have gotten blocked; I'm happy to have avoided that. (2) Joe Average editor is being harassed by a clever troll who knows how to game the system. Joe doesn't know how to investigate or present a case, but the troll is an expert at manipulating ANI discussions. This board is a place where Joe can get detailed, ongoing advice about how to take care of his troll. At ANI, cases are typically archived within two days. That doesn't serve Joe's need. Thanks for considering this. - Jehochman Talk 12:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - combines the worst features of WP:PAIN and WP:CSN without any of the positive benefits - blocking trolls for example. Addhoc 10:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. I always felt like CSN was a really bad idea. And I still do. It's better handled on AN or AN/I. Just no reason for what's essentially a fork. -- Woohookitty Woohoo! 11:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep for now, after Jehochman's reply to my comment above, I think we can give this noticeboard a chance. It looks like it has a valid purpose. If it turns out within a few months from now that it will suffer the same fate as CSN then it can be nominated again.
Melsaran (
talk) 12:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- Per discussion at WP:AN Melsaran was blocked for sockpuppetry, so the above comment should be considered accordingly. - Jehochman Talk 16:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Honestly, didn't we just finish this debate? ^ demon [omg plz] 13:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete with prejudice. Votes for Banning is never going to fly, as CSN showed us. In this case, it's Votes For people we really, really want to ban, but can't, because they took CSN away from us. The principal remains the same. - M ask? 17:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep for a while to see how it goes, it is not redundant, give this noticeboard a chance.-- Dseer 04:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: Several claims of a resemblance which doesn't exist illustrate a need to point out that WP:DE/N is structured on the model of WP:BLP/N and WP:COI/N, not on the model of WP:CSN or WP:PAIN. — Athaenara ✉ 04:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment It is possible that this board could evolve into a board for questionable disruptive editing that do not involve long blocks. If so, such board would be different from CSN. Archtransit 15:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Since this page was created without any real discussion very recently, I think the burden here is on supporters to show there's general consensus for it's inclusion. It'd be different if it was a long term page that someone thought had outlived it usefulness, but this page has never had consensus behind it. I say this because at this point it's clear that no consensus exists for it, and while that's the case it's not going to be very effective.
RxS 15:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- This MfD is rational discussion from which a consensus may emerge. The delete comments above rely exclusively on the false assumption that this is the same as PAIN or CSN. To delete the page, there need to be logical reasons, not gut feelings. I think the support comments, though fewer in number, are much stronger in logic, because they clearly show that this is not a re-creation of those failed boards. - Jehochman Talk 16:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- A troll's job is to be disruptive in novel ways. Many times an editor will see behavior that looks like trolling, but isn't certain. A central place where we can discuss suspected cases will help us avoid biting the newbies This board is also a place to politely tell people when they need to stop being disruptive. When that fails, we can go to ANI to request community sanctions. - Jehochman Talk 16:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - this seems like an unnecessary side-step before / in replace of an editor RFC. There is a noticeably strong resemblance to WP:CSN as well and after all the problems that occurred on that board, its proven that a system like that won't work out at the moment. ¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 18:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: The problem with "an editor RFC" (I presume you mean Requests for comment/User conduct) is that it is process-heavy (see Avoid instruction creep), set up such that issues cannot simply be posted there briefly and succinctly. — Athaenara ✉ 22:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep How can anyone say it will not be useful at this early a stage? Done right, this will address a different sort of problem. there's many ways to go about improving WP processes, and we should keep trying. I don't know if I really like an additional venue to keep track of, but let's see if it will be worth it. DGG ( talk) 01:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per above, nothing more to say. Tim Q. Wells 04:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.