This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (policy). Please do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to revive any of these discussions, either start a new thread or use the talk page associated with that topic.
< Older discussions · Archives: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z, AA, AB, AC, AD, AE, AF, AG, AH, AI, AJ, AK, AL, AM, AN, AO, AP, AQ, AR, AS, AT, AU, AV, AW, AX, AY, AZ, BA, BB, BC, BD, BE, BF, BG, BH, BI, BJ, BK, BL, BM, BN, BO · 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191
A reminder to editors that there is still an ongoing discussion about creating a guideline to define school notability. This has been a very contentious issue for Wikipedia in the past. Ongoing debates include
In order to judge consensus, editors are invited to review the proposed guideline and give their views. Eusebeus ( talk) 20:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
It has been proposed to eliminate the additional criteria from WP:BIO. I'm concerned that only 8 people have participated in the discussion, as this is a huge change that will affect a lot of articles. I'd like to get more people involved to decide what actually is the consensus about this. Horrorshowj ( talk) 02:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
To avoid a conversation fork, please respond at the original conversation. Balloonman ( talk) 02:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
We have a growing collection of index-like "lists of articles" and "lists of lists" (which I'll collectively call "Index lists", as specifically differentiated from "encyclopedic-lists" such as List of Polish flags), and we need to revisit some past discussions about how to handle them, and what namespace they belong in. I'll start off with the examples (4 of our best sets are those covering mathematics, geography, philosophy, and film, so I'll use those), and then give the points for consideration.
The lists are generally one of 3 types:
Slowly-considered feedback would be very much appreciated. I've tried to summarize all the current suggestions, but read the links given above for further background. Thanks. -- Quiddity ( talk) 05:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Just a simplistic comment. I like the idea of putting navigation lists in the applicable portals. If there were some way to develop a simple convention to put them on their own pages somewhere, like to-do lists, then they could be transcluded for more than one purpose, if desired, without the headaches of maintaining redundant pages. RichardF ( talk) 17:46, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I think this is looking better than it used to. {{
Contents pages (footer box)}} now lives mostly in Portal: namespace and doesn't raise my hairs for {{
self-reference}}. To my mind, type (3) lists of lists are fine, and we don't need to do anything about them just as long as they are strictly treated as
WP:DAB. The problem is the "list of [basic] $TOPIC [topics|articles]" articles. I cannot for the life of me find any usefulness in type (1),
List of geography topics or
List of mathematics articles or (sob)
List of mathematics categories (they must be compiled by people who haven't yet noticed that Wikipedia is searchable and categorized). But type (2) "cheatsheet formats" like
List of mathematics topics can actually be useful as long as they are intelligently arranged and not alphabetized. So, my solution would be: {{
move}} the type (1) "$TOPIC articles" pages to "$TOPIC topics" and convert them into something useful where possible ({{
merge}} the "basic topics" into "topics": "basic" vs. "non-basic" is not a distinction we should be making). Where such an approach doesn't work or meets opposition, {{
move}} the list articles out of article namespace, either to Portal:, or to a newly defined Index: or Contents: namespace.
dab
(𒁳) 19:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks :) -- Quiddity ( talk) 19:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Note from Dekimasu: this conversation occurred at Wikipedia:Requested moves, but as the discussion is really broader than a "move request" and the subsequent closes there have been to little avail, I am moving the dialogue here rather than simply deleting it from WP:RM. Take it as you will.
(End of section moved from WP:RM)
An attempt to summarize. (Again, I'm just rounding up the things I've seen repeatedly argued, and trying to form some conclusions about where the consensus is at).
Those last 3, regarding Type#1 lists, I'd like feedback on. Much thanks. -- Quiddity ( talk) 20:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I have skimmed the above discussion. I think it should have been conducted at Wikipedia talk:Lists. A wider discussion would have ensued.
The primary complaint seems to be that some people believe that index lists are not sourced. I beg to differ. They use primary sourcing. That is enough for something as noncontroversial as whether a wikipedia page exists. If the link is blue, then it exists.
I don't see a problem with leaving the lists where they are.
Concerning moving any lists to portal space, list space, etc.. I am against anything that lessens the access of lists to more readers. Otherwise the lists will not be maintained well. It takes a lot of drive-by editors from the hundreds of millions of wikipedia readers to keep up the millions of wikipedia pages and lists. Especially lists.
Please read the discussions about unified login to understand what happens to wikimedia projects that are inaccessible, or even partly buried. Due to difficulty in finding the project pages, linking, signing in, lack of unified login, lack of unified watchlisting, etc..
By the way, I have over ten thousand edits on wikipedia. I don't bother with other projects except the commons where I have thousands of edits. I am a low-level admin at wikia.com in one obscure topic. I know from experience how little gets done on projects outside the vast user base of wikipedia. Please do not bury lists, or even slightly lessen access to them. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 15:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Currently, in Wikipedia, there are Category:Felines, Category:Feline stubs and {{ feline-stub}} about animals in Felidae. I want all four to be consistent - either all Feline, or all Felidae. However, the discussions in the matter would need to be in three different places - [[Felidae would need a Wikipedia:Requested moves discussion, Category:felines would need a Wikipedia:Categories for discussion discussion, and the other 2 need a Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion. What's the proper procedure? Od Mishehu עוד מישהו 11:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I edited the article
Epaulette mate some time ago, using the template {{
cite web}} to list the references. Now I can see that this edit has been (more or less) reverted:
Diff.
Not a huge deal, but anyway... Question: what's the WP policy in situations like this? And if I (or the reverter) did anything wrong when using (or not using) the template in this specific situation, how should we have done it instead? ~
Tommy Kronkvist
talk
contribs 05:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
My contribution to the WP:PSTS debate. Comments welcomed at Wikipedia talk:No original research#WP:WITS or at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia is a tertiary source -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 18:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
We are exploring the creation of a page about sources, as a replacement for WP:PSTS (which lives at WP:NOR), at Wikipedia:Evaluating sources, as a way to resolve the on-going debate about primary/secondary sources.
The idea is to:
Editors' comments and input is welcome ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
It looks like the proposal for a new guideline at Wikipedia:Notability (media) has not gained much support from the community and has fizzled out. My feeling is that the exigencies of several AfD debates drove the proposal, but that in the end no suitable guideline could be produced. I think that the community should evaluate the progress and decide whether this is now a failed project and should be marked as rejected. Thanks! -- Kevin Murray ( talk) 18:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I knew crystal ball is prohibited. However, "prediction", "forecast" or "target" from the news sources should or should not be consider as crystal ball? Is major confusion and it is relate whether it can be include in Wikipedia articles. -- Aleen f1 06:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
In reference to Maple (software), suppose I have a reputable source (an AMS article) that cites criticism in general against proprietary software in mathematics, but that this isn't considered a specific criticism against Maple in particular.
Where should I put this criticism instead if it's not specific to Maple?
Thanks Swap ( talk) 18:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
In the recent Arbitration Committee case, the committee urges the community to "develop a coherent policy regarding the method by which community bans are to be imposed." Case remedy
The current "Community ban" policy reads, from Wikipedia:Banning policy#Community ban:
There have been situations where a user has exhausted the community's patience to the point where he or she has been blocked long term, usually indefinitely, and there is no longer any administrator who proposes unblocking them. Such users may have been blocked as a result of the blocking policy, or the community may have discussed their behaviour on a relevant noticeboard such as the administrators' noticeboard or the now-inactive community sanction noticeboard (which was created for such a purpose), and reached a consensus not to unblock the user. When discussions fail to achieve a consensus due to disagreement amongst administrators, the cases are referred to the Arbitration Committee. Users who remain indefinitely blocked after due consideration by the community are considered "banned by the Wikipedia community" and listed on Wikipedia:List of banned users.
So my question is, is this policy coherent, effective, and accepted by a consensus of the community? If not, which areas need to be fixed, and is there some sort of policy that can be adopted to make everyone's life easier, while keeping the wikilawyers, trolls, etc. at bay?
I think it is safe to state that a noticeboard for community sanctions is not acceptable to a large portion of established Wikipedians. The current policy gives each administrator wide authority over overturning "community bans". Is this acceptable? The policy as currently written contradicts itself and needs to be articulated and clear. At this point I do not have a good suggestion, but just thought I would try and start the ball rolling towards an acceptable, lucid policy. So I ask, What should we do? Mahalo nui loa. -- Ali'i 17:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
My feeling is that all indefinite blocks should be logged separately in the block logs (how many are there a day? Someone mentioned a figure of around 100 - a list of 100 blocks a day would be easy to review), and that definite blocks should be limited to a year or less. That would make it easier to see what indefinite blocks are being handed out (and to discuss them if needed for banning purposes), and to see if the culture of using indefinite blocks has spread beyond acceptable limits (persistent vandals and so on). Carcharoth 18:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
This all looks like a developing "dispute resolution" process to handle indefinite blocks. Blocks of definite length can be handled adequately by the unblock template and review process, but indefinite blocks require a better review process. As always, initial discussion should take place with the blocking admin. If they refuse to unblock, then an appeal can be made via a community discussion. If that fails, an appeal can be made to ArbCom. Or just appeal straight to ArbCom (via e-mail) as at the moment. Carcharoth ( talk) 02:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
There is a difference between a block and a ban, no matter how the ban is done. A block is a technical measure. The ban itself is a social contract that extends to the person responsible for that account. Therefore it doesn't follow that administrators' ability to block could or should give them sole voice in a community decision to ban. Durova Charge! 05:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
So yes, an indefinite block of a name-user, especially one with a decent edit history, should not be within the ability of ANY single administrator, or even any single small group of them. It's too much power, and administrators have very little oversight for their actions (which may end up being permanent), and (let's face it) also very little accountability for them. An administrator who unthinkingly blocks some little editor indefinitely as a sockpuppet or a disruptor, and later is shown to be objectively wrong or even to be mostly disagreed-with, doesn't face being de-sysoped and blocked indefinitely themselves, for abuse of power. If they did, they'd have more care about the decision. Right now, Wikipedia operates like a police force where any officer can night-stick any citizen, and the only recourse of said citizen is if some OTHER passing policeman happens to notice, and volunteer to intervene. Image how well THAT would work, with no Dept of Internal Affairs, City Council, Mayor, etc. In such circumstances, it would be best to give your officers very short nightsticks, indeed. It's not as though administrators need the power of indefinite blockage for self-protection. There are too many other mechanisms for that already in place here on Wikipedia. And it's not a place where anybody's ever in any physical danger anyway. If you think your indefinite block of some user wouldn't stick if reviewed by the entire community as though the user were somebody they cared about, then you'd better not be doing it in the first place. And we should set up the Wikipedia system accordingly. S B H arris 01:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
A ban should have documentation of the community agreement. A user should not be banned if not in the list of banned users. An entry in the list of banned users should include a reference (such as a link) to the community agreement. It should be acceptable to remove improperly documented bans from the list (perhaps after a [citation needed] period?). -- SEWilco 19:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Right now, community bans require unanimous consent of administrators (not agreement, but consent). Any sort of vote where an editor is banned by majority rule of whoever shows up is unacceptable because there is no way to measure whether or not that decision reflects community consensus. There either needs to be an impartial pre-selected jury (aka arbcom) or a unanimous decision. Nothing else could legitimately be called a community ban. Deleting articles based on mob rule isn't great, but it's not the worst thing in the world ... but when we're talking about bans, we're talking about people. -- B ( talk) 21:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (policy). Please do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to revive any of these discussions, either start a new thread or use the talk page associated with that topic.
< Older discussions · Archives: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z, AA, AB, AC, AD, AE, AF, AG, AH, AI, AJ, AK, AL, AM, AN, AO, AP, AQ, AR, AS, AT, AU, AV, AW, AX, AY, AZ, BA, BB, BC, BD, BE, BF, BG, BH, BI, BJ, BK, BL, BM, BN, BO · 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191
A reminder to editors that there is still an ongoing discussion about creating a guideline to define school notability. This has been a very contentious issue for Wikipedia in the past. Ongoing debates include
In order to judge consensus, editors are invited to review the proposed guideline and give their views. Eusebeus ( talk) 20:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
It has been proposed to eliminate the additional criteria from WP:BIO. I'm concerned that only 8 people have participated in the discussion, as this is a huge change that will affect a lot of articles. I'd like to get more people involved to decide what actually is the consensus about this. Horrorshowj ( talk) 02:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
To avoid a conversation fork, please respond at the original conversation. Balloonman ( talk) 02:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
We have a growing collection of index-like "lists of articles" and "lists of lists" (which I'll collectively call "Index lists", as specifically differentiated from "encyclopedic-lists" such as List of Polish flags), and we need to revisit some past discussions about how to handle them, and what namespace they belong in. I'll start off with the examples (4 of our best sets are those covering mathematics, geography, philosophy, and film, so I'll use those), and then give the points for consideration.
The lists are generally one of 3 types:
Slowly-considered feedback would be very much appreciated. I've tried to summarize all the current suggestions, but read the links given above for further background. Thanks. -- Quiddity ( talk) 05:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Just a simplistic comment. I like the idea of putting navigation lists in the applicable portals. If there were some way to develop a simple convention to put them on their own pages somewhere, like to-do lists, then they could be transcluded for more than one purpose, if desired, without the headaches of maintaining redundant pages. RichardF ( talk) 17:46, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I think this is looking better than it used to. {{
Contents pages (footer box)}} now lives mostly in Portal: namespace and doesn't raise my hairs for {{
self-reference}}. To my mind, type (3) lists of lists are fine, and we don't need to do anything about them just as long as they are strictly treated as
WP:DAB. The problem is the "list of [basic] $TOPIC [topics|articles]" articles. I cannot for the life of me find any usefulness in type (1),
List of geography topics or
List of mathematics articles or (sob)
List of mathematics categories (they must be compiled by people who haven't yet noticed that Wikipedia is searchable and categorized). But type (2) "cheatsheet formats" like
List of mathematics topics can actually be useful as long as they are intelligently arranged and not alphabetized. So, my solution would be: {{
move}} the type (1) "$TOPIC articles" pages to "$TOPIC topics" and convert them into something useful where possible ({{
merge}} the "basic topics" into "topics": "basic" vs. "non-basic" is not a distinction we should be making). Where such an approach doesn't work or meets opposition, {{
move}} the list articles out of article namespace, either to Portal:, or to a newly defined Index: or Contents: namespace.
dab
(𒁳) 19:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks :) -- Quiddity ( talk) 19:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Note from Dekimasu: this conversation occurred at Wikipedia:Requested moves, but as the discussion is really broader than a "move request" and the subsequent closes there have been to little avail, I am moving the dialogue here rather than simply deleting it from WP:RM. Take it as you will.
(End of section moved from WP:RM)
An attempt to summarize. (Again, I'm just rounding up the things I've seen repeatedly argued, and trying to form some conclusions about where the consensus is at).
Those last 3, regarding Type#1 lists, I'd like feedback on. Much thanks. -- Quiddity ( talk) 20:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I have skimmed the above discussion. I think it should have been conducted at Wikipedia talk:Lists. A wider discussion would have ensued.
The primary complaint seems to be that some people believe that index lists are not sourced. I beg to differ. They use primary sourcing. That is enough for something as noncontroversial as whether a wikipedia page exists. If the link is blue, then it exists.
I don't see a problem with leaving the lists where they are.
Concerning moving any lists to portal space, list space, etc.. I am against anything that lessens the access of lists to more readers. Otherwise the lists will not be maintained well. It takes a lot of drive-by editors from the hundreds of millions of wikipedia readers to keep up the millions of wikipedia pages and lists. Especially lists.
Please read the discussions about unified login to understand what happens to wikimedia projects that are inaccessible, or even partly buried. Due to difficulty in finding the project pages, linking, signing in, lack of unified login, lack of unified watchlisting, etc..
By the way, I have over ten thousand edits on wikipedia. I don't bother with other projects except the commons where I have thousands of edits. I am a low-level admin at wikia.com in one obscure topic. I know from experience how little gets done on projects outside the vast user base of wikipedia. Please do not bury lists, or even slightly lessen access to them. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 15:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Currently, in Wikipedia, there are Category:Felines, Category:Feline stubs and {{ feline-stub}} about animals in Felidae. I want all four to be consistent - either all Feline, or all Felidae. However, the discussions in the matter would need to be in three different places - [[Felidae would need a Wikipedia:Requested moves discussion, Category:felines would need a Wikipedia:Categories for discussion discussion, and the other 2 need a Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion. What's the proper procedure? Od Mishehu עוד מישהו 11:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I edited the article
Epaulette mate some time ago, using the template {{
cite web}} to list the references. Now I can see that this edit has been (more or less) reverted:
Diff.
Not a huge deal, but anyway... Question: what's the WP policy in situations like this? And if I (or the reverter) did anything wrong when using (or not using) the template in this specific situation, how should we have done it instead? ~
Tommy Kronkvist
talk
contribs 05:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
My contribution to the WP:PSTS debate. Comments welcomed at Wikipedia talk:No original research#WP:WITS or at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia is a tertiary source -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 18:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
We are exploring the creation of a page about sources, as a replacement for WP:PSTS (which lives at WP:NOR), at Wikipedia:Evaluating sources, as a way to resolve the on-going debate about primary/secondary sources.
The idea is to:
Editors' comments and input is welcome ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
It looks like the proposal for a new guideline at Wikipedia:Notability (media) has not gained much support from the community and has fizzled out. My feeling is that the exigencies of several AfD debates drove the proposal, but that in the end no suitable guideline could be produced. I think that the community should evaluate the progress and decide whether this is now a failed project and should be marked as rejected. Thanks! -- Kevin Murray ( talk) 18:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I knew crystal ball is prohibited. However, "prediction", "forecast" or "target" from the news sources should or should not be consider as crystal ball? Is major confusion and it is relate whether it can be include in Wikipedia articles. -- Aleen f1 06:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
In reference to Maple (software), suppose I have a reputable source (an AMS article) that cites criticism in general against proprietary software in mathematics, but that this isn't considered a specific criticism against Maple in particular.
Where should I put this criticism instead if it's not specific to Maple?
Thanks Swap ( talk) 18:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
In the recent Arbitration Committee case, the committee urges the community to "develop a coherent policy regarding the method by which community bans are to be imposed." Case remedy
The current "Community ban" policy reads, from Wikipedia:Banning policy#Community ban:
There have been situations where a user has exhausted the community's patience to the point where he or she has been blocked long term, usually indefinitely, and there is no longer any administrator who proposes unblocking them. Such users may have been blocked as a result of the blocking policy, or the community may have discussed their behaviour on a relevant noticeboard such as the administrators' noticeboard or the now-inactive community sanction noticeboard (which was created for such a purpose), and reached a consensus not to unblock the user. When discussions fail to achieve a consensus due to disagreement amongst administrators, the cases are referred to the Arbitration Committee. Users who remain indefinitely blocked after due consideration by the community are considered "banned by the Wikipedia community" and listed on Wikipedia:List of banned users.
So my question is, is this policy coherent, effective, and accepted by a consensus of the community? If not, which areas need to be fixed, and is there some sort of policy that can be adopted to make everyone's life easier, while keeping the wikilawyers, trolls, etc. at bay?
I think it is safe to state that a noticeboard for community sanctions is not acceptable to a large portion of established Wikipedians. The current policy gives each administrator wide authority over overturning "community bans". Is this acceptable? The policy as currently written contradicts itself and needs to be articulated and clear. At this point I do not have a good suggestion, but just thought I would try and start the ball rolling towards an acceptable, lucid policy. So I ask, What should we do? Mahalo nui loa. -- Ali'i 17:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
My feeling is that all indefinite blocks should be logged separately in the block logs (how many are there a day? Someone mentioned a figure of around 100 - a list of 100 blocks a day would be easy to review), and that definite blocks should be limited to a year or less. That would make it easier to see what indefinite blocks are being handed out (and to discuss them if needed for banning purposes), and to see if the culture of using indefinite blocks has spread beyond acceptable limits (persistent vandals and so on). Carcharoth 18:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
This all looks like a developing "dispute resolution" process to handle indefinite blocks. Blocks of definite length can be handled adequately by the unblock template and review process, but indefinite blocks require a better review process. As always, initial discussion should take place with the blocking admin. If they refuse to unblock, then an appeal can be made via a community discussion. If that fails, an appeal can be made to ArbCom. Or just appeal straight to ArbCom (via e-mail) as at the moment. Carcharoth ( talk) 02:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
There is a difference between a block and a ban, no matter how the ban is done. A block is a technical measure. The ban itself is a social contract that extends to the person responsible for that account. Therefore it doesn't follow that administrators' ability to block could or should give them sole voice in a community decision to ban. Durova Charge! 05:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
So yes, an indefinite block of a name-user, especially one with a decent edit history, should not be within the ability of ANY single administrator, or even any single small group of them. It's too much power, and administrators have very little oversight for their actions (which may end up being permanent), and (let's face it) also very little accountability for them. An administrator who unthinkingly blocks some little editor indefinitely as a sockpuppet or a disruptor, and later is shown to be objectively wrong or even to be mostly disagreed-with, doesn't face being de-sysoped and blocked indefinitely themselves, for abuse of power. If they did, they'd have more care about the decision. Right now, Wikipedia operates like a police force where any officer can night-stick any citizen, and the only recourse of said citizen is if some OTHER passing policeman happens to notice, and volunteer to intervene. Image how well THAT would work, with no Dept of Internal Affairs, City Council, Mayor, etc. In such circumstances, it would be best to give your officers very short nightsticks, indeed. It's not as though administrators need the power of indefinite blockage for self-protection. There are too many other mechanisms for that already in place here on Wikipedia. And it's not a place where anybody's ever in any physical danger anyway. If you think your indefinite block of some user wouldn't stick if reviewed by the entire community as though the user were somebody they cared about, then you'd better not be doing it in the first place. And we should set up the Wikipedia system accordingly. S B H arris 01:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
A ban should have documentation of the community agreement. A user should not be banned if not in the list of banned users. An entry in the list of banned users should include a reference (such as a link) to the community agreement. It should be acceptable to remove improperly documented bans from the list (perhaps after a [citation needed] period?). -- SEWilco 19:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Right now, community bans require unanimous consent of administrators (not agreement, but consent). Any sort of vote where an editor is banned by majority rule of whoever shows up is unacceptable because there is no way to measure whether or not that decision reflects community consensus. There either needs to be an impartial pre-selected jury (aka arbcom) or a unanimous decision. Nothing else could legitimately be called a community ban. Deleting articles based on mob rule isn't great, but it's not the worst thing in the world ... but when we're talking about bans, we're talking about people. -- B ( talk) 21:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)