Wikiversity talk:Bans

Identification and Confirmation of an Instance of Sarcasm
SBJ, in removing this section, you summarily characterized it as "sarcasm"...

Leaving aside the question of whether the above is (objectively speaking) a proven instance of sarcasm, would you be kind to enough to unpack for me the method or process you relied on to identify and confirm the cited section as an instance of "sarcasm" (as opposed to a sincerely proposed amendment)?

Moulton 13:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It's rather hard to believe that he really wants "Each of these rules must be drafted at the censorship policy page and approved by a process involving community discussion and consensus. Censorship rules can take the form: "Editors can be banned from editing pages "w" for a time period of duration "x" if they use the word "y" more than "z" times" to be part of the policy. --SB_Johnny talk 12:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * If something is "hard to believe", then an expression of skepticism, followed by a request for evidence, reasoning, and supporting analysis would appear to be a better practice than summarily adjudging and dismissing it as sarcasm, nonsense, vandalism, spam, etc. If, after a reasonable opportunity to respond, a sincere response does not appear, then perhaps one is justified in labeling the material in question as insincere, disingenuous, etc.  I am disturbed by the alacrity with which so many stewards and custodians arrogantly characterize contributions of their peers as nonsense, spam, vandalism, etc, without validating their haphazard theories of mind regarding those who contributions they are attacking, criticizing, dismissing, or censoring without benefit of a fair review of their peers.  The first duty of a scientific scholar is to attempt to falsify any novel hypothesis before adopting it as an accurate theory (especially is one is planning to engage in an exercise of political power over others on the basis of that unexamined hypothesis).  —Barry Kort 12:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * What I did was find the only basis in policy for imposing a ban and include that reason in the proposed policy for bans. In order to start discussion, I made a proposal for how the Wikiversity community might impose bans according to the existing civility policy where it says: "Create and enforce a new rule — based on use of certain words — that will allow temporary blocking or banning an editor using them more than a certain number of times". Previously, a ban was imposed at Wikiversity based on claimed violation of the civility policy. I'm still confused about how that ban was engineered, so I'm interested in having a policy for bans that makes clear how violation of the civility policy can result in a ban. I agree that the language I proposed ("Editors can be banned from editing pages "w" for a time period of duration "x" if they use the word "y" more than "z" times.") is unusual...it was intended to stimulate community discussion. --JWSchmidt 16:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

How to propose a ban
I object to two important changes introduced in this edit. First, decisions for bans on editing are rare enough and important enough that they should first be announced at the Colloquium. Second, the discussion must be clearly labeled as a discussion of a proposed ban, not given a misleadingly bland title such as "Request for comments on the behaviour of user:X". For example, Community Review/Moulton's block is a complete travesty of justice since it labeled discussion of a ban as discussion of a block. This kind of false representation of a ban proposal must never be repeated at Wikiversity. --JWSchmidt 14:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree. When someone believes that a person is vandalizing or doing harm to the project, they leave a comment on the custodian notice board or requests for custodian action. Similarly when more community input is requested for these sorts of problems another page should be used. Likewise people should not be encouraged to suggest that people be banned or blocked, but rather discuss issues, and allow the community to determine what the best course of action is whether that be a ban, a block or something else. I think these [ changes] make matters more complicated than things should be, and only encourages people with a vendetta to seek a ban, rather than encouraging a peaceful resolution. --dark[[Image:Yin yang.svg|12px]]lama 16:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * How much better it would have been if Cary Bass, Jimbo Wales, Guillom, or Mike Ingram had posted a comment on an appropriate notice board rather than sweeping into Wikiversity and summarily enacting a draconian edict without community review and discussion. —Moulton 12:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I've created Bans/Alternative for you to work on, so that the two different proposals may coincide and the community can eventually decide which they prefer or provide criticism on both. --dark[[Image:Yin yang.svg|12px]]lama 16:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

 
 * This policy page describes a policy for bans, not procedures for requesting custodians action.




 * Reasons for imposing bans need to be proposed, discussed and made official in policy before they are imposed on editors. I object to the idea of running more hidden tribunals at Wikiversity where bans can be imposed without adhering to policy. It is not right to hold discussions of proposed bans on pages that do not correctly inform the community that a ban is being imposed. I'm astonished that you would try to impose such unjust practices on this community and falsely claim consensus for your proposal.




 * I have no idea what you are talking about. How does clearly describing policy for bans and working to assure that the community participates in important decisions encourage people with a vendetta to seek a ban?


 * --JWSchmidt 21:59, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I never said this page was a procedure for requesting custodian action. I repeat: like requests for custodian action, requests for community action against other participants need to have their own page. You are making assumptions again, I also never suggested that people run a hidden tribunal, nor has there ever been a hidden tribunal. The focus of any proposal/review should be what someone sees as problematic, and not how John X must be banned. I have no idea what your responding to either, because to me it clearly has nothing to do with what I said or meant. I think [ this isn't a policy that clearly describes bans]. I think the approach to bans is also wrong like Hillgentleman said in one of his edit summaries. I think the community should decide in conclusion of having reviewed what Person A considers problematic about Person's B edits/actions whether a ban is necessary or not, rather than Person A asking the community to ban Person B. --dark[[Image:Yin yang.svg|12px]]lama 11:48, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * IOW you are taking this out of context:




 * because you ignored the next part:



</Blockquote>
 * --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;">dark[[Image:Yin yang.svg|12px]]lama 13:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The above comes across as bickering over the shape of the conference table. What's more important here is the fact that this community utterly failed to carry out a sober community review when Jimbo and IDCab imported their corrupt practices into Wikiversity.  Moreover, there is good evidence that the community hid under the bed out of fear that Jimbo would pull the plug on Wikiversity rather than allow a scholarly review of his inane and indefensible practices.  —Moulton 13:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * John, I agree that, if a discussion is leading to or leaning in the direction of banning someone, it should be announced loud and clear, in the colloquium, community review and mediawiki:sitenotice. But it doesn't mean that wikiversians should be able to propose out of nowhere that someone be banned. Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 12:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that discussion should happen in Community Review. I just don't see any point or benefit in announcing such discussions in the colloquium or in the sitenotice. To me such an announcement would seem to only serve to encourage people to gather pitch forks and torches for a public hanging rather than a means to encourage anyone with concerns to participate in a civil discussion. I much rather see Community Review made more prominent so that more people are aware of its existence and people who want to keep up with it can, which to me would be more like announcing that a public forum to discuss an issue will be taking place in a newspaper that people can choose to read or not. --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;">dark[[Image:Yin yang.svg|12px]]lama 15:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Implicit bans, direction of this policy
FWIW, most wikis tend to consider someone to be de facto banned if no-one is willing to unblock, and as pointed out in the section above, consensus to impose or maintain a permanent block could be discussed as an option on a WV:CR subpage as part of the evaluation of problematic behavior. With that in mind, we probably don't need to focus on this policy, especially since the policy in it's current state would never gain consensus support, and efforts to make it more attractive have been reverted. --SB_Johnny talk 12:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Failure of the official unilaterally imposing a block/ban to justify and defend his cause of action automatically nullifies the act. Above, others have expressed concerns about vendettas originating from other venues.  When Jimbo arrived unannounced in Wikiversity, he had previously signaled to me his intentions to act against me, based on specious complaints about a song parody posted on my personal blog.  If that isn't an instance of a misguided juvenile vendetta, I dunno what is. —Moulton 12:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * "most wikis tend to consider" <-- this is not the basis for making important decisions about Wikiversity policy. Wikiversity has a unique mission. If we were guided in our thinking by what most wikis do then Wikiversity would not exist. "the policy in it's current state would never gain consensus support" <-- Why not? Your only contribution to improving the proposal was to label part of it as sarcasm. "efforts to make it more attractive" <-- I find that a strange way to describe edits that removed the key elements of the proposal. Please explain why it is "attractive" to remove from a policy on bans the idea of using the Colloquium to notify the community that a ban has been proposed. Do you think it is "attractive" to delete from a policy on bans a list of the existing policies that discuss when a ban can be imposed? --JWSchmidt 16:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Unwelcome words
From the proposal, in Grounds for imposing a ban: According to the Civility Policy, the use of some words "a certain number of times" can result in a ban. This is a method for preventing incivility within Wikiversity and it involves the creation and enforcement of a new rule.

I advise against this as part of the policy, since it simply leads to wiki-lawyering or some other rule stretching. (i.e. if you can't use the Carlin-7 words, you're going to use a variation.) Also, that portion of the document doesn't match up with the Civility policy, which says restricts personal attacks rather than certain sets of words.

A better suggestion is to write the banning policy so that it applies to those who show contempt to the rule in question. For example, one comment use of a stray i-word may be tolerated (and is usually followed up by a warning to the user), but continuation of personal attacks in-spite of said warnings can cause the banning policy to apply. --Sigma 7 06:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the "bad words" wording should be nixed entirely, tbh. The only reason someone should be banned is if they have been consistently disruptive, and refuse to change their behavior. It might have something to do with using certain words, or it might not. --SB_Johnny talk 11:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Sigma, A problem we have now is that the grounds for banning someone from wikiversity are unclear. For example, the basic argument for the proposal User:Moulton being banned from editing is that he kept revealing the real-life names of wikimedians, leading to a few or half a dozen of oversights.  (By the way, this may not be the only reason why some people want him banned from editing.)  Blocking,  is technically not exactly the same thing, but it is similar enough.   John Schmidt had been blocked from editing a couple of times because some people think he was not acting in a "civil" manner, and his writings constituted "thinly veiled accusations" or "personal attacks";  however that is highly subjective (as you may know, everybody uses their words differently) and sharply contested.   We have seen situations when basically several wikimedians was denying and accusing others of incivility at the same time.  That is the problem.  Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 13:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I think some of you may be confusing bans with blocking a little bit. This proposal seems to be intended to make a distinction between bans and blocks. Where bans involve "you can't edit page X, Y or Z for a week, but you are still free to edit other pages", while blocks prevent editing of almost every page. Bans would basically require that a person be willing to abide by a set of terms in order to work. --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;">dark[[Image:Yin yang.svg|12px]]lama 15:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

reversion of change by TCNSV
User:TeleComNasSprVen made some extensive additions to this policy page without discussion, see my revert, which rolls back to the previous version by SBJ.

Among other problems, this edit uses the alleged "ban" of Moulton as an example. That is a proposed ban, as it stands, it has not been closed by a custodian, which I'd consider necessary, so this example would be premature. I'm not convinced that there should be any such list on the policy page, though having a list might be useful, and the standing version shows a redlink to a list of bans.

The change attempts to "legislate" one side of a recent controversy over the treatment of edits by Moulton, and the details of that should be examined before using one specific controversy to drive policy.

This, and other changes proposed by TCNSV, should be discussed and consensus found. Technically, this is a proposed policy page, not an actual policy page, but the difference can be academic. I'd propose that only small incremental changes be made with single edits, so that what's good can be immediately accepted and what isn't, then, discussed. Much of the new material simply repeats what was already stated on the page, that there is a difference between a block and a ban, and the new changes attempt to exaggerate the difference by allowing a blocked editor to edit under a rather vague and controversial set of circumstances, while totally prohibiting it with a banned editor (this is actually a radical change from standing practice). I agree with allowing a blocked editor to edit under certain circumstances, but those circumstances also apply to banned editors, and the only real difference, from Wikipedia practice, is that any admin unblocking a banned editor is considered to be acting against consensus, if it's done without a discussion showing a new consensus or, perhaps as a minimum, the non-existence of a maintained consensus to keep the user banned. A blocked editor may be unblocked by any admin, assuming that wheel-warring is avoided and that procedure for handling disagreement between administrators is followed. --Abd 20:01, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


 * At least please reinstate the list of banned editors. It is precisely there because there is no such thing as Special:Log/ban, because bans are instated by the community (and/or, what have you, a custodian) and are purely a social matter, whilst blocks can be recorded by MediaWiki's log functions, because they are fully integrated into the software. This simply reduces transparency on when, where, and the specifics and terms of already-instated bans. The consensus on the Colloquium page seems to be leaning in favor of the ban placed against Moulton, and whilst I admit that the addition here may have been a bit premature, it is important to demonstrate what an actual ban looks like; pending my investigation of other blocked users to see if any actual bans are currently in place actually we can simply replace Moulton's ban log with that of Emesee's ban, since that is an example of someone who is truly banned from Wikiversity. TeleComNasSprVen 22:25, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There is already a link to a list of banned users, it's Imposed bans. TCNSV restored a list of banned users to the policy page (which is really inappropriate, my opinion, a policy page should not contain a list of banned users, it's inflammatory), with one user, I'm reverting that but will list the user on the provided page. The practical import of a banned user list is that custodians should exercise care in unblocking such users, for if a ban is based on community discussion, it should not be casually lifted. This is not a rigid rule, but is a guide to prudence. --Abd 00:36, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I thought that I'd do this. But when I read the CR for the user, it merely confirmed that a block of the user and alternate accounts should remain in place. There was very poor participation in the CR. The close was by what I'd consider an involved custodian, whose earlier blocks ware being confirmed. Almost all participation was by custodians, and very few. Not a community ban, I'd say, merely a confirmed block with no opposition. This is what's called a "defacto ban" on Wikipedia, but the situation could change, under some circumstances, and it's not worth the effort to either convert this defacto ban to a formal, properly-declared full-on ban, or an unban. Close, but no cigar. If a custodian does decide to unblock an account of this user, another could, indeed, reblock based on the prior history, with enough cover to prevent troutslapping for wheel-warring, I'd say, but it that's one of the custodians who confirmed the block, not so good.... and let's hope we don't go there. So far, the page listing banned users is a redlink.
 * As the page says, a ban is a very serious move, and it should not be technically flawed, and it's worth the time to do it right, if it's going to be done. I'm not convinced that we need bans at all. But maybe. Should a ban discussion go in the site message? If not, why not? --Abd 00:50, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * What was the point of creating a content-less page? It's supposed to document all the banned users on Wikiversity. Besides, it wastes additional space and should be on the policy page since bans have the weight of policy. We aren't going to go around looking for the right Wikiversity page for all the banned users on the site. TeleComNasSprVen 22:29, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Listing a user on the policy page is inflammatory. Policy pages should eventually be edited rarely; adding and removing users would create unnecessary traffic, cluttering user watchlists. Start thinking about conserving user time and eye-space (valuable!), not server space (cheap!). The page has been defined for some time, linked from the policy page, just not used. I'll note that there are no users on it at this time, so that people don't look at the page for nothing. We might have someone to list soon, in fact, though that's not what I'd prefer. Banning is bad publicity, no way around it. It smells like punishment, though a "defacto ban" (an indef block that nobody lifts) simply means that admins have stopped wasting time with the issue.... However, topic bans can have a very legitimate purpose, properly done. And that is what would, in a more mature site, my opinion, be listed on WV:Imposed bans. Mostly topic bans. --Abd 22:41, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * By the way, I also intend to discuss on Wikiversity talk:List of banned users the issue of whether or not User:Wikademia or User:Emesee, etc., is banned or merely indef blocked. The discussion that allegedly created the ban (see ) doesn't mention "ban." It simply was a confirmation to continue, for the time being, the block. Yet the guy has been sanctioned for socking. The idea that a block is just "per account," and not "per user" is mostly preposterous. It applies to bots and a few other examples, that's all. --Abd 22:47, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Why do you insist that the idea proposed is considered "preposterous", when that idea has been espoused by the Wikimedia community at large? Please provide evidence to back up your claims, otherwise they would be in violation of Civility policy. TeleComNasSprVen 23:29, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Let's go a bit further with my examples. There has been, on the English Wikipedia, at the very least a block of ten IP addresses a day; in any or all of the Wikimedia wikis, with each wiki handling their own problems with vandalism, spam and whatnot, that amounts to more than fifty addresses blocked on a daily basis. Considering the large amount of people accessing each set of computers per IP, or some range of IPs, there is much collateral damage to be had if the reason, and it sometimes occurs somewhat often, is in the case of "ban evasion", as you put it. Now, is the block instated against the users involved, or the IP address itself? Open proxy covers a prime example of what the difference between blocks and bans are. There are plenty of good users out there accessing the IP nodes to contribute to Wikiversity, but there are equally as many vandals accessing the same ones the others would use. So, by blocking the address, we can't possibly be banning both good and bad users at the same time; we are just blocking access to that particular proxy, and we considered it necessary to block at least one person's access in sacrificing the other's. TeleComNasSprVen 23:37, 9 April 2011 (UTC)


 * TCNSV, this is a semantic problem. You are quite correct, blocks block specific accounts or IP (or IP range). However, when an admin blocks a named account, almost always the admin is actually banning the user, for the period of the block, and the proof of this is that "block evasion" -- which obviously involves using a different account or IP -- is routinely sanctioned, by additional blocking. A block is an objective condition, a state of the data in the machine. A ban is a social construct, a kind of agreement, and it's far more complex than a block. I've come to think that site bans are a Bad Idea, they are essentially ways in which the community binds its own future, because the only practical difference between a block and a site ban is that administrators are not permitted, without facing sanctions, to unblock a site banned user without obtaining some kind of consent from the community (or the AC on Wikipedia).
 * IP blocks are a special case: they are not blocking a user, per se, but an access mode, because it is being used by the user. If there is an IP vandal, and the IP is blocked, and we come to know that this was actually a registered user, you can bet better than even odds that the registered user will also then be blocked. It was, in fact, about the user!
 * You have a purpose in claiming what you do, that a block is not a ban, because you believe that a block does not allow user contributions to be reverted, but a ban does. That is all Wikipedia policy nuance, and it's unclear there. Many times I've seen block-evading edits reverted as such when they could be clearly identified. All that has happened is that WP policies talk about banned editor reversion, they don't mention the same thing for "blocked users." But they don't mention the contrary, either.
 * What you've done is to derive a presumed policy from what is not stated. Absolutely, the norm is that blocked editors don't edit, and if they edit, under normal circumstances, the block will be extended, with no evidence of disruptive editing, other than block evasion, being necessary.
 * There were some exceptions, lately, and I'm proposing a standard exception, self-reverted edits, because self-reverted edits, unless truly disruptive in themselves, even only sitting in history, represent self-enforced bans. They don't cause work for administrators, it's trivial to see that a revert was complete, and I've recommended that self-reverted edits by IP also self-identify, so there is no enforcement challenge. Self-reversion clearly represents good faith cooperation with the right of the community to ban. (Examples on Wikipedia have involved topic bans, which are purely a social construct, there is no block involved except as a sanction for violation.) On Wikiversity, Thekohser used self-reverted edits by IP, evading a global lock, matched by a local block, to make positive contributions, and as a result, Thekohser was unblocked (and I basically engineered that sequence, I suggested it to him in the first place, and he cooperated). I made the same suggestion to Moulton, but he was not cooperative, he tried self-reversion only, more or less, for a couple of days, to prove that it would not work, since, he believed, he'd be blocked anyway. He was, but because he'd pushed the limits, trying to find ways to be offensive in self-reverted edits -- it's possible! He could change his mind in the future, and if he did .... without establishing draconian range blocks, long term, we cannot prevent him from editing forever. What we can do is to make it easy for him to return to free editing and difficult to sustain disruptive editing, and to the extent that this has been done intelligently, his behavior improved. To the extent that it was incomplete and unenforced -- or over-enforced -- his behavior degenerated. It's not rocket science. --Abd 01:23, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Blocks are ad hoc bans, bans are not blocks, and "we have no consensus on consensus."
The policy here suggests that a ban does not disable editing. A block is a technical feature of the MediaWiki software that does disable editing for a named user, IP address, or IP range. There can be a ban without a block, but a block is an "ad hoc ban," generally a site ban or site ban allowing a user talk page access, and it may or may not allow email access, as distinct from a community ban. A block is always determined by a custodian or other superuser.

Contrary to what the policy states, a custodian may effectively ban a user, either from a page, set of pages, by generically warning the user about editing to those pages, that the edits may be considered disruptive, based on history. However, this does not create, for the custodian declaring this "ban," a right to block for nondisruptive edits to those pages. "Disruptive" is, however, a subjective standard, and custodians have wide latitude to apply it as to their own personal actions. This "ban" is really a kind of warning, in lieu of block, and should not be issued by a custodian if there would be no right to block for the same causes.

I have argued that a blocked editor has no right to edit, the same as a site-banned editor. As an example, a custodian who is blocked is generally considered to be violating community rules if the custodian self-unblocks himself. Blocked users are expected to follow due process, to request unblock, and to not evade the block merely because they disagree with it. There are exceptions, and there will always be exceptions to every rule.

Block evasion is its own offense, whether or not the block was justified. I have edited as IP when blocked, but only under unusual circumstances (such as a block that inadvertently cut off my Talk page access, or later during the recent Moulton flap, where IP editing by a blocked editor was being routinely tolerated. I would not have objected to the "blocked editor" reversion of any of my edits, under those conditions.)

The recent suggested change attempts to define a ban as something much deeper than a block, and, taken in conjunction with other arguments from the same editor, the apparent point was that blocked editors supposedly have the right to edit, there is no "automatic right to reversion," as is then defined as existing for banned editors. On Wikipedia, the distinction, while it can be derived from policy, doesn't actually exist. Block-evading edits are routinely reverted on sight, there, whether or not there has been a formal community ban (or ArbComm ban), the same as ban-evading edits.

Any unlifted block is, for the period, a "defacto ban," as a block which no administrator has reversed. When that condition exists for a "long time," whatever that is, it is then explicitly called a "ban." It is a distinction without a real difference, except for the process of reversal. When there has been a true community ban, or an ArbComm ban, process is required to lift it, a single administrator can be, at least, trout-slapped, or worse, for unblocking a block based on a ban.

But all this results from the fact that a site ban is functionally equivalent to a block. Both can be for defined terms. Both can be indefinite. But a ban is a community direction to not edit, to the editor, and a direction to administrators to not allow the edits. However, no administrator is obligated to enforce any specific ban, they are merely allowed to. Administrators are not slaves, they remain free agents, who can abstain from what they do not agree with.

The practical consequence: can an ordinary user or a custodian routinely revert the block-evading edits of a blocked user? This policy is actually silent on this, as would be expected, since this is WV:Bans, not WV:BLOCK. My own long-held opinion has been that yes, any user may assist in block enforcement, and such reverts are a form of block enforcement. They do not establish any specific content position; policy does not require that block-evading edits be removed (and the situation is the same for ban-evading edits.) If I reverted a Moulton edit, I or any other user could then, upon review of the edit, being personally satisfied that it was harmless at worst, or that the benefit outweighed the harm, could revert it back in, and I did this. If any other legitimate editor reverted my reversion, I could not then revert war with that editor based on "Moulton was blocked" -- or banned.

What is prevented by a block or ban is that any change originating with a blocked or banned editor has no right to be made, unless "seconded" by a legitimate editor. In the past, when I was reverting Moulton contributions, it, to some extent, prevented escalation of the block through range blocks, and almost all the contributions ended up being reverted back in. When Moulton knows that his edits are being reviewed, that someone else must take responsibility for them, he mostly behaves! The range blocks were only extended, in that history, when Moulton reverted my reversions, instead of waiting for review.

In the last sequence, Moulton was allowed to revert indefinitely and repeatedly. The result? I was blocked for (what?), Moulton continued and his edits became more and more provocative, and he was then range-blocked, massively, with collateral damage.

All-or-nothing blocks and bans causes situations to escalate, rather than allowing them to naturally defuse, as editors find value in cooperation, and the revert-all-edits approach does not involve any insult to the blocked editor, it is completely silent on the actual value of the edits, which is one reason why it has worked in actual practice, when revert warring by IP editors has not been allowed. It keeps a door open, and, in fact, we cannot close that door completely without collateral damage through massive range blocks.

There is another problem in the policy as stated. It gives custodians no role in deciding bans. It imagines that the "community" decides bans, but leaves completely silent how the community decides a thing. Wikis, in general, do not have mechanisms for community decision, discussions only create advice with various levels of apparent consensus. Individuals implement and enforce these decisions, each on their own responsibility. To enforce a ban, if a user does not spontaneously follow the ban, the possibility of blocks must be present, which requires a custodian willing to enforce the ban. For this reason, I'd require a custodian close any community discussion of a ban with a conclusion, as a crucial element in the decision. And what an individual can decide, the individual can undo, based on new evidence or considerations. The actual decision is by the closer, and a closer should never close a decision with a conclusion that the closer actually disagrees with; otherwise we have "decision by vote." Rather than by convincing argument.

We have never nailed down all this stuff because it's difficult. Many of these issues have simply been avoided for years. We have no consensus on "consensus." --Abd 18:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Your reasoning is terribly flawed. There is and always has been standard practice among wikis like Wikipedia that bans are instated because blocks are just not enough to handle some editor. Blocks are a purely technical function of MediaWiki. Blocks are the walls preventing you access; bans are the signs that tell you not to enter. Otherwise, anyone can bypass the wall very easily, because the warning imposed by it is merely implied and not explicit. Blocked editors remain part of the community, and have every right to edit as any other normal volunteer on the site.
 * You again proclaim that you are right, and often refuse to read or take anybody's advice, sometimes even including your own. I've already provided an excellent rebuttal to your ideology. Just because the bot account I operate/edit under happens to be indefinitely blocked", it does not follow that I am immediately site-banned or that my main account is to be blocked and any edit I make subsequently reverted. Again, and I reiterate for clarification, policy does not require anyone to do anything, since we are all just volunteers on this wiki, and only merely prescribe (or describe) the way editors should behave while accessing the site. TeleComNasSprVen 22:20, 5 April 2011 (UTC)