Wikiversity talk:List of banned users

In an edit to WV:Bans, it was asserted that User:Wikademia was banned.

Wikiversity:Community Review/User:Wikademia was cited. That Review did not attract adequate participation to secure a community ban. Rather, admins involved in the block of Wikademia did open up a CR, but for whatever reason, perhaps it wasn't noticed, hardly anyone commented, and the discussions were closed by a sysop who had been a blocking admin, essentially confirming his own block. That's fine for an ad hoc decision -- this wasn't improper -- but is not adequate to determine a ban. There was no determination of a ban there, merely a block was defacto sustained through lack of opposition. This is sometimes called, on Wikipedia, a "community ban," but more commonly, the term is used there for a ban that was actually determined by the community, with a neutral close.

The difference between a block and a ban is important if it's interpreted that:
 * The talk page of a banned user will be blanked or even deleted, replaced with a ban template.
 * No custodian is allowed to unblock because it was a "community ban," not merely the decision of an admin or a few.

A true community ban will have a close by a neutral custodian (WV:Bans is unclear on close; it implies that custodians have no role to play in bans, but that is a misunderstanding. I'd, personally, require a neutral 'crat closure for a ban. Every ban should have someone who becomes the enforcer or arbiter of it, someone who can undo it if new conditions arise, without a new community discussion. That aspect of how wikis work (by creating ad hoc neutral "supervisors" of something that requires admin tools, such as page deletion or blocking) is often not understood, but when it is, the wiki works with far less fuss, on Wikipedia, DRV is avoided, etc. I'll explain if anyone wants the explanation...). --Abd 23:41, 9 April 2011 (UTC)