Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:21, 24 October 2007

Archives
June 2006 – Mar 2007 Mar 2007 - August 6, 2007 August 7, 2007 - the mysterious future This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived to User talk:Jehochman/Archive 3. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Bernard J. Taylor

Your comments about this profile simply being advertising is very disingenuous, inaccurate and alarming. You could use that comment about just about every profile on every writer and composer. Happily, more experienced editors apparently do not agree with you. Siebahn

Would you like to tweak this?

I've started a rough draft at User:Durova/Wikisleuthing to explain what this is about. Contributions welcome.

Regarding reverting back the Toto page

I've gone back and changed all the bias and fan writing that Steve McVey made. Some of what he wrote was an improvement so I kept it. I just took out the bias stuff, everything is good now. Thank you for all your help. Writer1400

69.106.230.196

Hey Jehochman, congrats on getting the mop, sorry I wasn't around to support your RFA (was on a wikibreak).
Could you have a look at IP User 69.106.230.196's contribs to my talk page and to Talk:feminism. They claim to have held an account previously and already know WP's rules and code of conduct but they're adding screed to my talk page about abortion. 69.106.230.196 has a problem with the phraseology of "feminists campaign for the right to abortion" - this terminology (right to abortion) is not my pov - it is taken verbatim from a number of books about feminism's campaign for women's rights. 69.106.230.196 takes issue with the definition of the word "right" in relation to abortion but (as yet) has no sources for their stance.--Cailil 21:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jehochman, sorry to bug you about this user again but User:69.106.230.196 is back on their soapbox but now using a different IP (User:69.106.250.135 ). 69.106.230.196 had already been issued with a level 4 warning, so these new contributions are after a final warning--Cailil 18:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Archived the Korean War issue from the COI noticeboard

While doing a manual archive of this item that you had already resolved, I removed the closure box, since that way it fits better with the other bot-archived items in Archive_18. Let me know if you would prefer the box. This way a person (sufficiently motivated) can quickly scan down through an archive to see which items got archived without any action taken (since they have no Resolved banners). The non-acted-upon items could later be resurrected, given infinite free time, which I'm sure we'll all have if we wait long enough.

My sympathies for the situation over at Misplaced Pages:Disruptive editing/Noticeboard. When you first proposed that, I thought 'He'll never get away with this!' You get many points for trying, though. EdJohnston 21:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, well, if nothing else I will plant the idea that ANI has become an overcrowded emergency room. We need to separate those cases by topic (triage) and then deal with each one carefully. Too often, ANI leads to sloppy administration. We can do better. - Jehochman 04:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		Awarded to Jehochman for a brave edit this template won't let me include here, natch. I'm seriously impressed and humbled by your actions, which I don't know if I would live up to in similar circumstances, to my shame. I tip my hat to you, good sir. ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants

Specifically, this. You have my unlimited admiration for putting Misplaced Pages first. ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 22:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much! - Jehochman 12:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Help on an article

Hi, I'm new to the wikipedia community and recently wrote an article on Analog signal processing. I saw that you had left a comment on the digital signal processing article and was wondering if you could take a look at my article and leave some comments for me. Any help would be much appreciated.

Drew335 00:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for telling me about the editor training program. I can't wait to use it!--Gp75motorsports 11:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Small Thank You

Thanks for fixing this! Pressed the wrong section edit button.¤~Persian Poet Gal 18:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Award

		The Sandwich of Exceptional Excellence
		I, Folic Acid, award you, Jehochman, this Sandwich of Exceptional Excellence (Potato Salad of Congeniality cluster, 1st class) for your outstanding conduct to date as an admin (and a new one, at that).  Folic_Acid | talk  13:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! - Jehochman 13:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

RE: Noticeboard

El C, when you deleted that noticeboard (how often do you get to delete one of those?), you left the talk page. Was that your intention, or unintention? - Jehochman 13:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Not often enough, let me tell ya! No, not intentionally. But I see no harm in leaving it undeleted. El_C 14:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's fine to leave it there in case people want to ask what happened. How about leaving a link to the MfD? Yes, I'll do that. - Jehochman 14:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jonathan - It's Li :)

Hey Jonathan, dropping you a line so you know it's me (Li) with this id. Going work on my profile page this weekend after catching up on the stuff I missed out on at the beginning of the week.  :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Storyspinner (talk • contribs) 15:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Redirect of WP:DE/N

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on WP:DE/N, by another Misplaced Pages user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because WP:DE/N is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting WP:DE/N, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot 15:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, CSDWarnBot. I've deleted it myself. You're welcome. - Jehochman 18:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Seeing that you've recently joined the Admin club, I hope you because a successful one. I really appreciate the compliment you left on my talk page. VoL†ro/\/Force 21:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course I'm not in a rush, but it feels good that my contributions are not going unnoticed. VoL†ro/\/Force 23:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

We block dead people?

Since when is it inline with the blocking policy to block someone for being dead? -- John Reaves 23:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

That's what's always been done before. The deceased person obviously can't edit, and nobody is allowed to use a Misplaced Pages account besides the owner. What possible harm can a block cause? Leaving the account free to edit can only lead to mischief.

Somebody else was in fact editing, and we have no idea who. That's a solid reason to block an account. Another possibility to consider is that when an account announces the death of its owner, there's a possibility that the account has been hacked and it's a hoax. That wasn't the case here, but we didn't know that at the time.

Perhaps this all should be written into policy, but maybe this level of detail is instruction creep. - Jehochman 00:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I've never heard of this being done before. But if someone else was editing, I suppose that reasoning makes sense. -- John Reaves 20:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

We don't hear about editors passing away too often. There's a list Misplaced Pages:Deceased Wikipedians. You can see these accounts have been blocked to prevent abuse. - Jehochman 20:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Per my RfA

Thanks for the note on my request, I see your suggestion and appreciate the idea. Would you be willing to be my "admin coach"? Rudget _{Contributions} 12:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd be happy to coach or mentor you. Please contact me when the RFA closes. - Jehochman 15:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for wanting to assist me if I get the mop, I'm going offline now though. I'll definitely help with the DYK suggestion tomorrow. Regards, Rudget _{Contributions} 16:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Your block of User:Sadi Carnot

For the reasons given here, I've taken the unusual step of reversing your indefinite block of Sadi Carnot. Please remember that indefinite blocks of established users by single admins are virtually never justified. Blocks are meant to be preventive, and the length of your block is obviously excessive in relation to the problem that needs to be solved. If you want a ban, take the matter to ArbCom, but I doubt very much that they will issue a ban in such a case. Physchim62 (talk) 16:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

An indefinite block is an undefined length, not an infinite length. I wanted to get assurances from the user before unblocking him. Are you willing to mentor this fellow and monitor his contributions to make sure he doesn't relapse? You should be aware that we announced this block far and wide just in case somebody would be willing to unblock him. That strategy has been effective, because here you are. - Jehochman 16:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Hkhenson, who is no saint himself (always on the point of a WP:POINT violation, among other sins), most certainly has an axe to grind with Sadi Carnot: see Talk:Capture-bonding. Yes, I'm willing to discuss the matter further with Sadi Carnot to explain to him the error of his ways. Physchim62 (talk) 16:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, Keith Henson has definite issues. I actually didn't give any weight to his comments. Keith and Sadi were involved in a case where I was the mediator, so I am familiar with both. Coren, Kww and MER-C provided evidence against Sadi. Those three are all solid contributors with no apparent motivations other than protecting the encyclopedia. I trust you to counsel Sadi and monitor him. I'm running out the door, but when I come back, I will post something to explain that at ANI. Meanwhile, could you please rearrange your "witch hunt" comment to be a bit more diplomatic? If you look at how the thread started, I was trying hard to WP:AGF with respect to Sadi because I had always found him to be a polite editor. - Jehochman 16:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

JH, I've been reviewing this Sadi Carnot issue and I fully support your actions in this case and I endorse the reapplication of the indefinite block. I think Physchim62 is profoundly and disturbingly out-of-touch with community standards and I would have reblocked the account myself if it hadn't already been done. Sarah

Oh, I hadn't noticed that it was reblocked. - Jehochman 02:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't; I misread what someone wrote. I've reblocked it myself. I think it is quite obvious that there is overwhelming support on ANI for the block at this time. Sadi can post his response on his talk page if he wishes and the case can be reviewed in light of whatever he has to say but I cannot see any legitimate reason for arbitrarily overturning the block. Sarah 02:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The ban will make it easier when the socks turn up. - Jehochman 03:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I am indeed considering either an RFC or an ArbCom against your original block, as I believe that your approach to blocking is detrimental to the project. In the meantime, may I request that you remove the maintenance tags that you have added to articles to which Sadi Carnot has contributed. Your actions in doing so have greatly increased the amount of work for other editors in cheching these articles. If you are worried about the veracity of their content, please feel free to compile a list and to post it at WikiProject Chemistry, where it will get expert attention. Do not forget that there are over 28,000 articles related to chemistry on Misplaced Pages, so you tags will be gloriously ignored unless we actually know where they are. Given your other comments on this case, you may consider this a warning against disruption of Misplaced Pages. Physchim62 (talk) 14:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Please do take it to Arbcom, and please stop reverting my good faith actions without discussion. I just reported you at WP:ANI for reverting my actions without discussion. You've done it three times now. The warning you left above, and your accusations of "witch hunt" don't help either. Please stop before this gets out of hand. - Jehochman 14:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, firs of all my apologies for bringing it up here since I know nothing about Sadi Carnot or chemistry. But I'm an old friend of Physchim62 and I would like you to take a look at RfA:Catalonia.

There Physchim62 played a major role: He began that Request for Arbitration due to the vicious debates that were being hold on Catalonia and Valencian Community articles, Physchim62 was abusing of his administrative powers by blocking indefenitely anons and new users, threatening whoever disagreed him and letting a very disruptive user act without any punishment.

Ironically, the RfA he opened to punish those who disagreed him was closed with a blocking for the user Physchim62 was being lenient to.

Sorry if it's not related, but the situation with Sadi Carnot and his protection by Physchim62 reminded me on a previous actuation by him.

--Casaforra (parlem-ne) 07:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen that case. I'm not a mission to discredit Physchim62. I just want Arbcom to clarify the ground rules for community banning disruptive users. They are aware of that case, and if they see a pattern, they can do something about it on their own initiative. - Jehochman 11:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Hal Lindsey (from ANI)

Hey Dude, to be honest, I didn't know it was a dispute or there was a problem (or would be). I went to the store and come back and I have created a major "thing" on ANI. Something I didn't intend to do. I have no stake in the Hal Lindsey article, none. I haven't actually watched the guy's show, only seen TBN for a split second when flipping through the channels, I really have no stake there. I was only attempted to remove edits that could be in violation of the "Misplaced Pages is not a crystal ball" rule (not sure what the exact rule is). If I messed up, then I do greatly apologize. I know radio stations and User:Bee Cliff River Slob came over into the radio station relm with the same cruft and I reverted there and thought doing some cleanup for the other pages he hit would be nice too, hence my edits. Again, if I stepped on some toes in my cleanup, I do apologize. I have been here a year, but I am still learning all the rules and whatnot. Again, I am sorry. Take Care...NeutralHomer 18:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely don't worry about it. You didn't do anything worth discussing there. It's no big deal. - Jehochman 18:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad, I was worried I made a whole bunch of people mad.  :) Take Care...NeutralHomer 18:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Capture Bonding

Could you take a look at the bottom of http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Capture-bonding? Thanks very much. Keith Henson 22:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I've posted a message at WP:COIN requesting a volunteer help with your request. Thank you for doing the Right Thing™.- Jehochman 11:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

SC

My reasoning here is less for the sake of SC than it is for the sake of PC62. PC62 was very upset about this, not because he agrees with SC's crackpottery (quite the opposite), but because a) SC has been useful on historical articles, b) SC wasn't warned first (which is true), and in general c) he (PC62) felt it was such a witch-hunt atmosphere he was going to resign his op bit over this, and possibly even take it to arbcom on a point of principle.

I think that would be a terrible waste of everyone's time and effort, and that my solution is an improvement. DS 22:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the reason the reaction was so strong is that a whole bunch of people found out they had been snookered. And the more they looked, the worse it got. PC62 makes good points above, and Jehochman got what he wanted which was someone willing to take responsibility for SC if and when he comes back. So I see no reason things should not work out OK.

That still leaves a considerable mystery as to what SC was doing and why. I am tempted to ask U of Michigan (Ann Arbor) graduates from 1998 if those who knew him can illuminate the mystery.

Keith Henson 23:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, folks. It's not within my power to overturn a community ban. The only way is to appeal to Arbcom, or to start a new discussion at ANI requesting an unban. That would be premature because Sadi hasn't even commented yet, and he hasn't taken responsibility for past problems. The resolution of this case will be handled at Arbcom. Hopefully we can all come to an agreement there, shake hands, and avoid wasting time. I have no bad feelings towards any of you. - Jehochman 00:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Have you ever heard of...

The organization mentioned in this new page: Link Building Association .? --Versageek 12:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

/me deletes. No. It's Spam™. - Jehochman 13:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello Jehochman

I wonder if you can help? I understand that administrators can view deleted information. If you find time, could you please tell me:

• When were the article(s) deleted by Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Human thermodynamics and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Human thermodynamics 2 created?
• When was the account User:Wavesmikey created?
• When was the account User:Sadi Carnot created?
• Less importantly, when was the article deleted by Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Vibraimage created, and by whom? An apparent copy of the article here looks a lot like the work of User:Sadi Carnot, but it was apparently written by User:Elsys.

Feel free to edit my comment to add answers. I quite understand you may be busy or otherwise unable to answer my questions so please feel no obligation at all. Thanks ~ TreeKittens 17:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Your answers:

• When were the article(s) deleted by Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Human thermodynamics and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Human thermodynamics 2 created? -- a. created 24 May 2005 by User:209.86.97.41 / b. same article, must have been undeleted.
• When was the account User:Wavesmikey created? - first edit 21 June 2005
• When was the account User:Sadi Carnot created? - first edit 27 December 2005
• Less importantly, when was the article deleted by Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Vibraimage created, and by whom? An apparent copy of the article here looks a lot like the work of User:Sadi Carnot, but it was apparently written by User:Elsys. -- Created 2 January 2007 by Elsys, edited heavily by him and Sadi Carnot, but not at the same time. All other editors were resisting the article.

Cheers - Jehochman 17:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for helping me, but I think I didn't ask my question properly. User:Wavesmikey's earliest recorded edit was this one, which was indeed made on 21 June 2005. Is there no way of finding out when his actual first edit was (ie to the article he wrote which was then deleted), or when the account was first created? I understood that administrators can see the edits users make to articles which have since been deleted. Perhaps I am mistaken? Sorry to bother you again, and thanks for your help. :) --TreeKittens 17:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Both accounts have deleted contributions, but they are later than the ones I cited above. - Jehochman 17:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that - sorry to pester you! Peace --TreeKittens 19:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks 2

Thanks for the funny note and the barnstar; probably only you and I "get it". I was tempted to say something funny on your RfA, but was afraid it might backfire since, well, my writing sucks and it probably wouldn't come out funny.

The problems with SC are deep and long-standing; being name "worst" by him could be considered an honor (I suppose you'll put that forward as evidence in the ArbCom case as an example of his behavior?). I support your efforts wrt the ban, but this brings to me to another issue. To me, the most important issue. My prose isn't particularly eloquent or succinct, so I ask you to bear with me and understand what I'm trying to convey.

I have typed and deleted and re-typed and re-deleted a response to the change you made to the banning policy, and decided instead to discuss it first with you. It's never wise to base policy on one case, no matter how strong it is, and not every case is like Sadi Carnot. His is not the only case before ArbCom right now involving the need to clarify the ban policy, and I'm afraid your change will introduce a worse kind of abuse than the abuse you seek to correct. Did you follow the MfD of the Community Sanction Noticeboard and the types of problems that led to its deletion? There are worse evils than "reduc(ing) Misplaced Pages's security to the level of the least competent, most gullible sysop" and that is elevating bans to the level of the strongest abusers and votes by popularity contests. Recent abuse at the Community Sanction Noticeboard led to its deletion and confusion about the ban policy. Editors were site banned based on "votes", not discussion, and in spite of several editors willing to unblock. That kind of abuse, IMO, does far more damage to the longterm health of Misplaced Pages because it causes productive editors to leave in disgust. After viewing multiple instances of abusive bans or attempted bans, I almost quit editing Wiki. The community can deal with the SCs, but more harm is done when productive, hard-working, well meaning editors tire of witnessing abuse and leave. Discussion, not votes, is the way to go, and when that fails, ArbCom is the next step.

IMO, ban discussions should proceed as this one did: . I hope you'll read it carefully as it frames my basis for how I view sitebans and the discussion of them; the discussion proceeded over at least four days, and I was able to check in daily, even while on vacation, before decisions were made. Although I was (and remain, both on- and off-Wiki) the victim of an extreme attack and harassment that undermines Wiki and my editing, in the face of overwhelming consensus that the editor should "not only be off Misplaced Pages forever, but probably in jail or a mental institution as well", one admin argued that mentoring would be a better approach. He was not gullible; he was right. Had this editor been banned, the harassment I deal with would only be worse. It is up to me now, if I'm tired of the harassment, to bring it before ArbCom; Wiki treated every editor as fairly as possible. And even though I remain under attack, I would much rather live with the harassment than to accede to a system that allows for any group to force any editor off of Wiki permanently, because THAT is more dangerous in the longrun because it alienates and embitters good editors.

I fear that the changes you made to the banning policy will solve one problem (the SCs and Zs) at the expense of opening the door to a much larger problem of systemic abuse by groups of editors promoting agendas. I guess I prefer gullible to the more insidious harm that comes from the other kinds of abuse I've witnessed on Wiki. I really oppose that change in wording to the ban policy, and I strongly encourage you to consider that there are other sides of that issue and to investigate the issues I mention. I hope I've got some credibility with you, so that you'll work to understand the broader issues, beyond one bad editor here and there, that concern me. As you can see, your change to the banning policy would have made my life simpler; my harasser would have been banned by overwhelming consensus against only one admin advocating for mentoring. A ban wouldn't have been the best outcome at that time; admin abuse chases off more good editors and does more long-term harm to the Project than the SCs and Zs, who can be dealt with by other means. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

My approach is (1) stop them, and then (2) offer a legitimate way back. Indefinite blocks aren't infinite. Perhaps the banning policy should say that any administrator can unblock a user on condition of mentoring them and taking responsibility for their edits. I said this to Physchim62, that I would agree to an unblock if Physchim62 would take responsibility for Sadi. P62 waffled and then unblocked before arranging mentorship. That's ass backwards, which is how we ended up where we are today. Turning loose a problem editor before arrangements are made is reckless. Nonetheless, if an admin wants to unblock a banned user and mentor them, that's something that the community should always support. Would it help to write that into policy? - Jehochman 12:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

My concern is the whole introduction of two classes (de facto banned and consensus banned). I don't think there should be any such thing as a consensus banned as you've defined it, as it opens the door to the same kind of abuse that was occurring at the Community Sanction Noticeboard. I support the long-standing policy which was if any admin was willing to unblock, there is no ban; discussion ensues at WP:AN, and it goes to ArbCom if admins can't work it out. Again, I'm far more worried about the type of abuse we saw at CSN than I am about the CSs and Zs, who can be dealt with. Your concern is to "stop them"; you can stop them by putting in place a one-month block (see the Z case above) while the community has time to discuss and resolve without wheel warring. By doing that, we can develop more consensus, better long term solutions wihtout pressure, and avoid potential for abuse. The kind of abuse of bans I saw at CSN and other places makes me want to leave Wiki forever and simply not lend my hard work and good will to a Project that tolerates railroading, while the harassment I live with as a result of an imperfect ban process is not something I can't deal with or which will cause me to leave Wiki. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you propose a new process?

If a user might need to be banned, the blocking admin can place a one month block. At the same time, they initiate a ban discussion at WP:AN. While that discussion is ongoing, the block must remain in place, unless overturned by Arbcom. Once the discussion at WP:AN reaches a consensus to ban, topic ban, or unblock with or without conditions, the original block is refactored accordingly. If the discussion leads to no consensus, the case is referred to Arbcom.

This process would prevent wheel warring, protect the encyclopedia, and allow administrators to resolve their own disputes most of the time.- Jehochman 20:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, my understanding is that *is* (or was, before the change) the process currently in place, and a change proposal isn't needed. Did I miss something? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey, did I start this? :-) I found that "users" subpage by Sadi Carnot and pointed it out at WP:RFARB. Another note I left led to Jehochman leaving me a note, and I came here and saw that Sandy was here, and went to Sandy's talk page and saw that the Users page had been pointed out. I should have thought of the barnstar myself... Anyway, Jehochman responded to my concern that AN and ANI are not really suited for the type of discussion that took place about Sadi Carnot (AfD tends to be more forthright about BS in articles), but I like the suggestion give above. I never really followed CSN, though I caught the tail-end of the MfD. I have noticed longer and more disruptive discussions on ANI since CSN was shut down. I always thought ANI was for quick stuff, and AN for the longer stuff, so maybe AN is a suitable place for discussions. I wonder if the shorter discussions there will suffer though. Whenever noticeboards are shut down, there is a period of adjustment as different communities clustering around various noticeboards adjust to accommodate 'refugees' from the closed down noticeboard. What might help is better management of the noticeboards, with off-topic stuff directed to the right noticeboard. Anyway, hopefully things will work out. Carcharoth 20:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey, you didn't start it <grin> ... I was very worried about the banning policy even before the SC situation came to light. If you take the time to read through the link to a banning discussion I gave above, you may see why I stridently disagree with this newfound notion that WP:AN isn't the right place for these discussions. I strongly believe it *is* the right place, and the current *perception* of problems surfaced as a result of the abuse that was occurring at CSN and its subsequent shutdown, and that some editors and admins honestly came to believe that we can "pass out bans like candy" based on "votes". It's a dangerous precedent: more dangerous than the random SC situation. I strongly hope we just go back to the way it was before all that CSN nonsense, and that folks will settle in to realizing that it was the aberration, and that the long-standing way of handling things on WP:AN (as in the link I gave above) worked. I'm very concerned about the abuse, and if anything will eventually cause me to give up on Wiki, it will be watching editors be railroaded based on selective application of policies by groups. Please keep in mind that SC is not the only banning situation before ArbCom right now, and not all situations are as clear as his. SC was clearly a long-standing problem, but we can handle that via the usual processes. I don't believe in any separate noticeboard where users can be banned; the abuse was occurring because groups could ban users without broad community awareness or input. It belongs on WP:AN, in plain sight. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with plain sight. Can we get the banning policy clarified to document the consensus about how the process works so we have something to point to when an admin starts acting impulsively? - Jehochman 21:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, the banning policy was, no ban if any admin was willing to overturn. Can we get that back in? I know it works against the SC situation, but I'm confident we can deal with that. I hesitate to get involved in policy talk pages, though; nasty past experiences there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I can't agree to 1400 admins each having individual power to veto a ban. That means there are no bans, because one fool will always oppose just to show off. If a discussion leads to a consensus that the editor should be banned, then that should do it. If somebody doesn't like the result, they can appeal to Arbcom. This site isn't as small as it used to be, and the financial motivations behind abuse are much stronger now that we are a top 10 website. Times change and so must we. - Jehochman 21:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I see your points; still very worried about the downside of absue potential. One thing that would help is that we not shuffle ban discussions off to some obscure noticeboard and keep them centralized at WP:AN, where they get broader input. But a question; are there actually 1400 *active* admins, and how often do we see the kind of wheel warring that occurred with Sadi Carnot? If we separate the issues (that the ban shouldn't have been overturned, it should have been discussed in depth), why not go back to the old way? The ban was put in place when no admin was willing to overturn; maybe we should do as you said above, and formalize it to a one-month block discussion period? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)