Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard

Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard

Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This page was created with the intent that it was to become a place for the community to come together and discuss matters similar to those that are normally discussed on the administrative and incident noticeboards. It was felt that because "administrators'" was used in the title of the other two pages, it excluded the rest of the community, which they truly did not.

This board was originally known as the "Community noticeboard". It has however become a board to get a vote on officially banning users. I had originally planned to send this board up for the miscellany for deletion when the board decided to discuss the merits of the original community ban on Daniel Brandt including some users who wished to lift the ban on the user (irrelevant of later actions by Jimbo concerning Brandt). This board is no longer used to discuss pressing issues for the community but rather a brand new version of Wikipedia:Quickpolls.

Such examples of abuse of the board include the discussion of Eagle 101's unblocking of Gen. von Klinkerhoffen and the extreme misunderstanding of what a community ban is, a request for more people to comment on a ban (not unlike an AfD discussion), as well as the previously stated Daniel Brandt discussion and discussing whether or not the original community bans are still in effect.

The decisions made on the community sanction noticeboard have also spread to other pages concerning the community ban, but those pages will have to come up at a later date. Deletion is my first choice here. Sending it the way of Esperanza is my second choice. We just need some sort of decision to eliminate this mess of bureaucracy before it becomes like WP:AfD or what has become WP:RFCN.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment and history: FWIW, I wrote the original definition of a community ban: "not one out of 500 admins are willing to undo." This presumes admins selected for at least some sanity and willingness to discuss, which I do think we still have. Note that when I wrote this phrase, I was being descriptive: this already happened at this time. Some people were so obviously unsuited to Wikipedia (POV-pushing, obsession, batshit insanity or whatever) that a ban was by far the kindest thing for them and us and no admin considered it not the sensible thing in the circumstances. As we suffer the dizzying heights of top 10 popularity, we get ever more of these. The arbitration committee later ratified the practice (certainly when I was on it) - when obvious hopeless cases were brought before it, we'd often say "This is an obvious one to just block" - with noting it on the admin noticeboard being presumed the obvious sensible thing to do. (I've put my actual opinion waaay below.) - David Gerard 19:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

A community ban is one that "not one out of 1,200+ admins are willing to undo", not something that was "ratified" on a noticeboard. Check out this current request. Community bans are simple, something that nobody is willing to undo, not something that is ratified by a board. Also please note the board's original purpose was to be a place to post things visable to everyone, not a place to discuss users. I'm seeing cases where the board is being used for nothing but to attack other editors, without going through the dispute resolution process, or even attempting to open an request for comment on a user. See WP:CN#Request_for_blocking_of_user:Pdelongchamp_on_vlogging_article, that user has never had a Request for comment, or gone through the dispute resolution process, but rather just ran to get a ban. Misuse of this board (whose intent was never to be for bans to start with) are rampent, just check the archives here which shows 38 sections with a bolded endorse, support, or oppose. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 08:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - Maybe we should re-focuss what a community ban actually is then. There is no way to truely know if a user is community banned without ratifying it - this is the ideal place for it. Ryan Postlethwaite 08:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Sure we do, if not one out of 1200 admins are willing to undo it, then the user is banned. If the user has an indef block and appeals it, and no admin is willing to undo the block (because they have been so troublesome) then its a ban. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 08:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't agree, for long term users, a community ban should be ratified, so that it is clear the user is not welcome here, and any socks which they may create. It is also the only place that page bans can be given out without wasting ArbComs time. Ryan Postlethwaite 08:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
      • If you take it through the dispute resolution proccess then it will end up at arbcom, who will then do the ban after over 3 weeks of discussion, not just the quick "yea" or "na" stuff I'm seeing here. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 08:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Some things don't need the 3 weeks of discussion that ArbCom do - it just wastes time when the community can give the same action anyway. Ryan Postlethwaite 08:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
          • Really? Please show me a decent use of this board, of a user that was not already indef blocked by the time they showed up here for "ratification". Keep in mind a community ban is an indef block by an admin which no other admin will undo. I mean someone like User:Willy on wheels is dead obvious, but other cases where there is edit-disputes, and multiple users who did something wrong, its time to go to arbcom. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 08:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
            • Wikipedia:Community_sanction_noticeboard#Lovelight? Blocked for 2 weeks, turned into a quick discussion and his block was extended to a full community ban, no RfC needed, or ArbCom due to the fact that the community had already had enough and things were unlikely to change. Ryan Postlethwaite 08:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
              • Mmm had I noticed that I would have done a RFC, and had gone from there rather then the witchhunt and "supports" to ban a user from wikipedia. If the user asked for a request for comment, and was willing to stop his edits, then he should have been given the chance. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 09:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
          • If these bans do not need extensive weeks-long discussions, then why does there need to be a separate noticeboard for it, which has turned into a procedural and vindictive nightmare? If most of these users are already banned, there doesn't need to be any waste of time like this. If anyone wants to discuss it, the administrative noticeboards are both open and available for it, which have never had the problem of masquerading as some ratifying legislature. —Centrx→talk • 14:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Such strongly misinformed ideas like "There is no way to truely know if a user is community banned without ratifying it" which are promoted by this noticeboard a strong argument in favor of its disbandment. Dmcdevit·t 09:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, as useful (and while that's not a valid argument on AfD, it is on MfD!), even if some issues have needed ironing out. (When did SOFIXIT become SODELETEIT, anyway?) CN does not change the definition of old-style community bans, and discussion on the matter has been pretty clear that those need no ratification by any means other than no admin being willing to unblock. If its only purpose were to discuss community bans about which there might be some question, even that would be a useful purpose. However, the most useful purpose it has served is to provide a mechanism by which the community can propose and ratify sanctions short of a complete ban. This cannot be duplicated by old-style community bans, there is not a button an admin can hit to say "Block EditorX from editing foo-related articles," and see if any other admin undoes it. This aside, banning an editor is a serious enough step that something should be reserved for purpose of such discussions. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment As an addendum to the last, I've asked more than once to be provided an example by those who object to CN, of when a decision made on CN was wrong or improper. Thus far, no such example has been forthcoming, so I leave the question open here. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Request community ban on {{vandal|JB196}}; where the board was planned to solely be used to have a link on WP:LOBU—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I would also like to point out Consideration of block or ban for User:Just_H, where it was very obvious that no one would be unblocking him.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm asking for a decision you disagree with, not a listing you disagree with. Yes, sometimes things get listed that really don't need to be. If we're going to MfD for that, we'd better throw AN and ANI on this, a lot of useless threads get opened there! In this case, the banned user was obviously correctly banned, they stayed banned, no harm done. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
      • My issue with the board is that while good things evolve from it, the method by which these decisions are made is done in an entirely improper way. Most users listed there are already indefinitely blocked, and nearly all have never been unblocked under any circumstances.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Or, in other words, it does some good and no harm? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
          • You are setting up a false dichotomy. I could just as equally ask you to provide a bad decision made on another noticeboard that necessitates this one. However, your question doesn't address a major problem: this process is emphatically not how bans should be done. Bureaucracy is clunky, promotes technicalities over result, and serves no purpose in itself. So in defense of bureaucracy, the proper question is never "what harm does it do?" but "what essential purpose does it serve?" This one does do harm by attempting to constrain the ways in which a ban may be enacted. Dmcdevit·t 09:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
            • There is no "false dichotomy" in asking "What good does it do?", nor in asking "Has it actually done harm or led to a wrong conclusion, or is it just theoretical that it could?" Even Ryulong states that it has been useful. Apparently many other editors agree-they use it! Sometimes, process can have the harms you cite. On the other hand, having a degree of process is important. As you and I have discussed at length, I think most would pretty well agree that the old definition of a community ban (blocked indef and no one has any desire to unblock) still holds. On the other hand, it is useful to have some clarity for people. There's nothing wrong with having structure to making important decisions, and whether or not to ban an editor is a pretty big decision. (You're participating in a process right now, where we're deciding whether to delete that page. If we didn't have this process, the alternative would probably be endless wheel wars. Processes are not inherently bad.) I also find the continuous comparisons to the "quickpoll" process to be a complete straw man, that was obviously a bad idea. There's no "number counting" at CN, and it's pretty clearly stated that it is not a vote. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
              • People use it because it is listed there as the proper place to request a ban. That does not mean that they have made any sort of decision as to the special value of a separate noticeboard and this particular special noticeboard. In addition, if you are going to respond to these requests to ban, the only place to do so is where the issue was brought up, unless you move the whole discussion to the administrators noticeboard. —Centrx→talk • 14:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I must say that I find a bit of this unconvincing, and would prefer deletion at this point. First, I believe that the community sanction noticeboard does change the the definition of community bans, by turning them into a bureaucratic process. This is dangerous. We don't need yet another insular, self-serving community of people reporting on others and "enforcing". See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Personal attack intervention noticeboard. This is also instruction creep that gives rise to the misconception that all bans must be discussed and ratified on CSN (even arbcom bans a year old) and tht is being spread to other places where such threads are directed to CSN as inappropriate at WP:AN. Furthermore, this promotes the misconception that discussion is necessary for any and all bans, since bans are now some "formal" process which require "ratification." Discussions are a matter of judgment: necessary when there is a valid question, but a waste of time when an issue is obvious to all, and not contested. Excessive rules and bureaucracy with no functional benefit are the treats for trolls and ruleslawyers, who will seek to avoid bans because procedures like this were not followed. There is no reason that proposals for bans cannot be brought up at other, better fora, with more traffic and less procedural hoops. This is a wiki; that page is the same as all the rest except for what you write at the top of the page. The discussions you are talking about, like "provid[ing] a mechanism by which the community can propose and ratify sanctions short of a complete ban" can take place just as easily on WP:AN or elsewhere. Deleting the CSN is not suggesting in any way that discussions about bans shouldn't take place, but that the way they do there is unhelpful, usually. CSN doesn't give anyone a "Block EditorX from editing foo-related articles" button either, so it's not any more necessary for such decisions. The concern about voting is a very valid one. Despite the page's header, discussions there have often devolved into simple votes, where rationale is unimportant, and worse, admins have even been "closing" such discussions as if it were a vote to be read and decided, not a discussion with an organic conclusion. We need to avoid the quickpollization of community bans at all costs, and based on its history, I think the community sanction noticeboard is counterproductive in that regard, and serves no necessary enough role that isn't already covered elsewhere that it is worth saving. Dmcdevit·t 09:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

If you don't support quickpolls at all, then how do you suggest we interpret non-poll discussions. Polls are only used to make concensus measurable. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Reasons? Dmcdevit·t 09:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Consensus between reasonable people is typically pretty obvious without polls. In addition, no matter how many bogus polls you make, the user can still be unbanned by any administrator if the ban is unreasonable, which is the exact same situation as without polls. —Centrx→talk • 14:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• This page has never produced any helpful/productive/useful/constructive/etc. discussion on anything. Most posts are either a waste of time or are just being used as an unofficial step in dispute resolution. John Reaves (talk) 08:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. A lot of pages get abused, but that's not necessarily a reason to drop them. In this case it takes a lot of the load of very busy pages like WP:ANI and Arbcom. Making those a little less busy is something I consider a good thing. As for a "community ban". I think that is a ban the community supports as the name suggests. This means most admins will support it to, but that shouldn't be the primary reason, or it would be called an "admin-supported ban". -Mgm|^(talk) 09:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Admins act on behalf of the users. The amount of load taken off is very little, and the instruction creep is very high. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 09:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • If you are going to set up some fallacious dichotomy between conducting things teh way they are done at CSN, and having "admin-supported ban," then I think you've missed a lot of history. CSn didn't invent community bans, thank you very much; we had them before and and will have them after it. The community is also not the Form of the community, it just calls itself that, and in fact is much less trafficked by the "community" than better noticeboards. Dmcdevit·t 09:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Fnord. This is a protest against excess process wonkery – Gurch 09:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Close and mark as historical, largely per Dmcdevit. This noticeboard is not proving a useful sounding board and is not solving disputes; it is acting as a meeting ground for groups of editors to see how many people they can get to join their banning campaign. It is unfriendly and unhelpful. Sam Blacketer 10:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as above, largely per Dmcdevit. This board is heading the same way as WP:PAIN. It is being used as a first stop in a dispute, an attempt to get another user banned. Despite a very strong header and many refactorings, it is also being treated as vote by far too many people. It is overly beuracratic. Viridae^Talk 11:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

D'ye mean "beerocratic"? *hic* -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 12:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as nominator and per excellent reasoning by Dmcdevit, who has thankfully spared me the need to present my own case. Polls are not a valid method of dispute resolution. Mackensen (talk) 11:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Nuke it. per nom and Dmcdevit. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 11:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• keep - there is a very real issue that, if we continue to say that "no admin is willing to unblock" is a "community ban", admins who otherwise would have been willing to will be afraid to unblock someone who has been called "community banned" for fear of defying the "community ban" - the situation where no admin has unblocked a user is, at best, a de facto community ban, not a real one. --Random832 12:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Err, really? I just recently unblocked an editor that was community banned. Heck it was even "ratified" by this board. You can see the questioning of my ablitly to do so here. Please do note that I was also questioned on ANI, and one of the editors not liking the result of ANI, took it to this board. Nothing but process wonkery. If it blows up on the unblocking admin then it blows up, my exeriance with unblocking gen. von klinkerhoffen has been good, as he has gone to doing decent edits. :) —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 12:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't think anyone is "afraid" of the community sanction noticeboard, though if your reason for keeping it is to cause fear that's not a good reason. —Centrx→talk • 14:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Question. Does anyone object if this MfD is announced at WP:VPP and WT:COI/N? EdJohnston 12:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: Sometimes what the "community consensus" will be isn't clear unless you actually ask the community. Why not do so in a forum clearly marked for that purpose, rather than scattered around other noticeboards and/or talk pages, email-lists or IRC channels? This way there's an archive and the opportunity of watchlisting this specific topic -- so if it's done wrong (voting, quickpolling, "lynch-mobbing", whatever) all the concerned wikicitizens can intervene. How could you watchlist and monitor such discussions if they were scattered all over (and off) Wikipedia? Notice also that problem-solving can benefit from community discussion; sometimes topic or article bans have been imposed instead of general editing bans, allowing an editor to stay productive instead of being lost altogether. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 12:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • All of these purposes are served by the Administrators noticeboard, which you can rename to the Administrative noticeboard if you want, and which worked just fine for several years to propose an idea of whether someone should be banned. —Centrx→talk • 14:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
    • By that argument, we should fold all the other noticeboards back into WP:AN as well... and make its bytecount and clutter that much bigger and harder to deal with. But progress has been in the opposite direction: as the population grows, divide out the topics among specialized noticeboards. This one happens to be for community sanctions. When people bring such issues to WP:AN, now they can get directed over to WP:CSN, just as conflict-of-interest issues can get sent to WP:COI/N, BLP issues can get sent to WP:BLP/N, etc. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 15:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
      • 1) Sub-noticeboards like WP:PAIN and WP:RFC were collapsed back into the main noticeboards because of their problems. 2) WP:COI/N and WP:BLP/N do not per se require administrator attention, and if you would look at those pages you would see that almost no one responds to these requests such that if anyone actually wanted administrator attention they would have to bring to the administrator's noticeboard. —Centrx→talk • 17:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Nuke the sucker; I've always questioned its existence, but hadn't really paid much attention to it in the last month or so. Ryulong's examples are interesting, and Dmcdevit's point is sound. Ral315 » 13:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. This is far from ideal, I admit. But discussion between five people on ANI was not better, nor was the old "nobody will unblock" standard. I will support deletion if and only if someone actually comes up with a better process for community banning first. -Amarkov moo! 13:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • This noticeboard does not replace "nobody will unblock", which is still true, and ban discussions on ANI where necessary have many discussants. —Centrx→talk • 14:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - I would never block someone based on the discussions present on the Community sanction noticeboard, I resent a few editors behaving quite uncivilly and trying to force administrators into blocking users. The people requesting the sanctions aren't going to be liable for any fallout from a Community ban, it's going to be administrators, and unless we have an overwhelming majority of administrators here who are happy to (in my view, recklessly) block a user per a request here, then it's totally useless. Now, why wouldn't I carry out a block/ban request from this board - Simple - The board doesn't disregard conflict of interest, it doesn't find all the evidence, it can and frequently is very one sided and it's often used to carry out vendettas against certain editors. There's enough little cliques on Wikipedia that would like to cause trouble and would like to be able to ban certain users, this board tries to give them ability to do so. For that reason, it must be deleted and any future board that works in a similar manner should be blocked. If we need an enhanced capability to ban users, an extra few arbitrators would be my preferred solution and a streamlined arbitration process for users behaving unsuitably. If a user is to be banned, they are at least entitled to a fair and impartial investigation into their behaviour. -- Nick ^t 13:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. God forbid the community have a say in the processes regarding removing people's editing privs. How dare we infringe on the power of administrators? I really hate to be sarcastic in an important discussion, but I'm seeing absolutely no way to take this nomination seriously. If anything, this is not the forum to discuss this - it's akin to nominating DRV for MfD. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • If CSN were not around, admins would not have any more power than previously...the discussions would just take place at AN or ANI, with an invite for everyone. --Iamunknown 13:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Interesting that you believe that. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
      • And are you going to actually discuss and try to defend your statements? MfD ain't a vote --Iamunknown 17:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
        • And what statement, at this point, do I need to defend? --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
          • Nvm, this is pointless. --Iamunknown 19:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • The "community" has no more or less say because of this noticeboard. The problem is the bizarre parliamentary environment created by this noticeboard, a noticeboard which is unnecessary. Also, there would be nothing wrong with nominating DRV for MfD. —Centrx→talk • 15:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
    • O RLY? --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
      • What about it? There was no need to speedy close it, and it was speedy closed by one of its major participants. Regardless, there was much less concern about it in the discussion than here. —Centrx→talk • 17:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• keep - Largely as per Random832, but with some reservations Whether you like it or not, Wikipedia is getting bigger, and the primary justification for bureaucracy is that it runs large things better than anarchy. When you have over a thousand administrators, obvious cliques that DO exist, though they may not be as influential and conspiratorial as the kookier among us would have you believe, and the current moderately subjective policy net, if you don't have a mechanism for enacting a "ban," you get into that situation where "blocks" and "bans" become synonymous because administrators won't overturn blocks for fear of stepping on the wrong toes. Adding process in this case serves to make the decision to block or unblock a lot more secure by giving you a decision to point to and not requiring the piles of exposition and investigation implicit in the alternative. Keep in mind that these discussions were already going on when the board was created - they were just taking place on the Administrators' boards (though I'm not the most prolific contributor by a long stretch, I do observe a lot). I'd be just as happy if some alternative community sanction process were defined, but given the choice between the Community board and nothing, I'd rather have something. Cool moe dee 345 14:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • The discussions can still happen on the administrators noticeboard, as they always have, which still serve as a place to point to in order to support an unblock. —Centrx→talk • 15:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Close page or Delete per nom and my argument at the last MfD. The name is better, but that's about the only thing that's improved. IronGargoyle 14:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. 'The consensus' may be up in the air somewhere, but occasionally people have the urge to make it tangible. The CSN helps make Wikipedia less Kafkaesque, in the sense that people want to know where to turn or how decisions get made. Do you need to be an insider-insider before you have any idea what is going on? The CSN receives some amateurish attempts to ban somebody based on inadequate evidence, but if experienced editors can reasonably respond and point out the inadequacy, those who come there will learn something. EdJohnston 14:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • CSN did not invent discussion or consensus. The claim that there was nowhere to turn before the CSN is ridiculoous. Again, this is a red herring: no one is proposing that discussion be banned, but that it take place somewhere else. Dmcdevit·t 18:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep. This board is the venue for community ratification of voluntary restrictions from community enforceable mediation. To add to the note about this being the only location for establishing non-siteban community sanctions such as article banning, this is the only venue where such discussions get archived in a coherent manner for later reference. The current firestorm began when a few sysops seriously misunderstood the discussion on Daniel Brandt: it was initiated as a preventative measure to protect certain Wikipedians from a potential lawsuit based upon how a court of law might misunderstand this site's practices. There was never a serious possibility that he would be unbanned or that Wikipedians considered his previous ban invalid. Likewise, another citation of a thread I started has been badly misconstrued. Neither I nor anyone else suggested that older community bans are invalid. I do think it would be a good idea to discuss longstanding indef blocks before unblocking so that relevant issues get handled proactively. The Nathanrdotcom arbitration case could have been avoided if such discussions had been standard practice a few months ago. Regardless of how any editor prefers to define a community siteban, this board serves useful functions that would otherwise land in ArbCom's overburdened laps. Durova^Charge! 14:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Close it down. Basically this is a new process for lynching and it has no consensus. So unless there is a consensus to keep it it should be regarded as rejected.--Doc^g 14:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I'll ask the same question as above, then. Might you point to one case, just one, in which a "lynching" (an improper decision to ban) actually took place? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • WP:CSN isn't a new proposal to be "accepted" or "rejected", it's the status quo -- it's been up and running for a couple of months already, and its policy basis was stable for five months. If there's no consensus, the default outcome is the status quo. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 15:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment If 'no admin will unblock' is the definition of a community ban, what happened here? - These discussions can be had on the current page, or some other page, but clearly there will still be a need for them to take place somewhere. Ehheh 14:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I've devoted half a year of volunteer work to making sure community sanctions don't degenerate into lynching. It's rather disappointing to see people who've had minimal involvement and who cannot cite one negative example attempt to summarily dismantle so much careful effort. The only lynching I see is the one at this MFD. Durova^Charge! 15:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I have not seen one positive example of why it is necessary, and people have cited negative examples. In addition, if it requires such a Herculean effort to prevent the community sanction noticeboard from degenerating into lynching, that is an essential problem with the way this noticeboard is constituted and you would spend your time better by doing something else. —Centrx→talk • 15:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Most of it was a matter of keeping abreast of discussions and planning refinements so the process would remain equitable and scalable. The only herculean effort has been in attempting to reason with people who leap to conclusions and read with bad faith. Durova^Charge! 15:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Effectively, that does not happen because an admin only bans if they think a ban is appropriate, which is exactly the situation without all these procedural formalities. If what you want is an admin to ban based on a skewed and easily manipulable poll at this noticeboard, regardless of their own judgement, then you do have lynchings. If you want admins to use their own judgement in not banning unless appropriate, then you have exactly the situation as before and all this political theory has no effect. —Centrx→talk • 17:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
          • My work as a coauthor of the disruptive editing guideline was dedicated in large part to help ensure that rank-and-file editors could bring appropriate cases to the attention of the site's sysops and to making sure that the process would be robust enough to withstand attempts at manipulation. These concerns garnered considerable attention and broad discussion while the guideline was in proposal phase. To the best of my knowledge they have been addressed adequately and the only counterexample offered thus far at this discussion has been - to say the least - dubious. This isn't about political theory but about practical benefits. To offer a fresh example, last week I needed to request checkuser and oversight. The checkuser resolved to the same continent where I had been involved in community banning an editor a few weeks previously. I had trouble recalling the name of the sockmaster account, but I was able to locate the appropriate thread in about three minutes at the board's archives. Before CSN got established it used to take me ten times as long to find comparable threads at AN and ANI archives, so instead of prolonged frustration I received a quick answer that eliminated one possibility as a red herring. This board serves useful functions and it works quite well. Durova^Charge! 18:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
            • CSN invented no new archiving technology. All you have are people doing it differently (I gather, though even that I don't see). There are people everywhere. There's no reason WP:AN couldn't be archived in the same way. Dmcdevit·t 18:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
      • "and people have cited negative examples." Then you can answer the question Seraphimblade keeps asking (and not getting an answer to): "Might you point to one case, just one, in which a 'lynching' (an improper decision to ban) actually took place?" So far, all anyone's pointed to is people making bad requests for banning -- which they could do on WP:AN just as easily -- but those bad requests get declined... which isn't a bad example against the noticeboard. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 15:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
      • "if it requires such a Herculean effort to prevent the community sanction noticeboard from degenerating into lynching, that is an essential problem with the way this noticeboard is constituted and you would spend your time better by doing something else." That would be trading the Augean Stables for the Hydra: instead of monitoring one forum to keep it clean, you'd be running around to everyplace else a ban might be discussed, trying to knock off any budding lynch mob, only to find more had formed on different pages, email lists, or IRC channels. How could you ever monitor them all? -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 15:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • In reply to Ehheh (talk · contribs) 'no admin will unblock' is, at least in my opinion, not a good definition of a ban. That is an indef and doesn't take into account a ban's allowances for blocking sockpuppets on sight and immediate removal of the banned editor's contributions. A ban is more than just an indef nobody will lift.--Isotope23 16:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
    • No, if someone is indefinitely blocked and uses sockpuppets, that is a circumvention of the block, which is not allowed. —Centrx→talk • 16:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
      • • Good point.--Isotope23 17:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Although I find the prospect distasteful, it's worth pointing out how that definition permits any single administrator out of 1200 to unilaterally establish full functionality of this noticeboard by simply announcing that he or she will implement and lift indefinite blocks in accordance with the outcome of consensus discussions and in the general manner applied at AFD. I'd prefer not to establish site practices on such house-of-cards foundations. Durova^Charge! 17:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Unless you want all this to descend back on AN and ANI again (you know, one of the reasons that the board was created in the first place). And agreed, the only Lynching that's taken place is the one to attempt to remove this board. In EVERY case where someone used the CSN board as a lever in an ongoing dispute, the community saw through it and did not fall for it. Give the community some credit. SirFozzie 15:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment If partial bans descended to AN and ANI they would virtually cease to exist on the community level. Durova^Charge! 15:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
    • You mean admins are not part of the "community" and the "real" "community" members are not allowed to post on AN and ANI? —Centrx→talk • 15:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Quite the opposite: I mean AN and ANI lack coherent means to archive partial bans. So, de facto, only a handful of people would be aware that a community topic ban exists. Enforcement would fall entirely on their shoulders and if a block on that basis ever gets contested it would be devilishly hard to find the thread that established its justification. That's what kept these things from becoming scalable before CSN began. Durova^Charge! 15:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The idea of bringing down the community in favor of AN or ANI is frightening. So what that there's two noticeboards? The last thing we need is to limit the power of community consensus in favor of administrative power. Rockstar (^T/_C) 15:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Care to give a rationale for that claim? No one is disputing the will of the community, but that this insular, self-perpetuating, bureaucratic forum that put "community" in the name doesn't represent it. Consensus discussions take place (with admins and non-admins) take place better elsewhere. Dmcdevit·t 18:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Where, exactly, would they take place better? RfC? ANI? Give me a break. Rockstar (^T/_C) 18:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Yes. Dmcdevit·t 18:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Arbitary section break

• Keep - the admin noticeboards are extreemly long anyway, and expecting non-admins to trawl through a large amount of non-relevant information isn't very considerate. Also, I don't understand the comments which imply this board constitutes some form of innovation - the community ban for Ste4k was essentially similar. Lastly, the board could be improved, I would suggest automatically removing any post that relates to an editor with a clean block log in the last 3 months or anyone who has been indefinitely blocked. Addhoc 16:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This MfD is yet another of many recent moves to strengthen the hand of elites relative to ordinary editors of WP. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Edivorce (talk • contribs) 16:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC).Edivorce 16:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Care to give a rationale for that claim? No one is disputing the will of the community, but that this insular, self-perpetuating, bureaucratic forum that put "community" in the name doesn't represent it. Consensus discussions take place (with admins and non-admins) take place better elsewhere. Dmcdevit·t 18:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
    • No, and stop spaming participants with cut and paste questions.Edivorce 19:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
      • How is that cut and paste? Why is Dmcdevit not allowed to ask questions? This isn't a poll; you don't just offer an opinion and that's that; this is a discussion. --Iamunknown 19:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
        • see this diffquestions to Rockstar and Edivorce are identical. May be other examples but I'm not inclined to look. I have indicated that I do not wish to further elaborate. Do you think you can compel my participation?Edivorce 20:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
          • Nope, but I would ask the closing administrator to take that into consideration. We're here to generate consensus, not do a quick poll. --Iamunknown 22:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
            • Now your just plain badgering me. Do you think your encouraging discussion or supressing dissent? Edivorce 22:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, I don't see WP:CN as instruction creep; it's just a different place to have ban discussions and take some of load off WP:AN/WP:ANI as well as keep a clearer archive of bans, which is extremely useful from an administrative standpoint. I've come across several instances in the last couple of months where an indef blocked editor was tagged as banned when they were not actually banned. Having a central archive of ban discussions should make it vastly easier to determine if someone is really banned or just had a previous account indef'd and nobody bothered to unblock them (and this is a very important distinction). Of course now I've realized that I'm essentially repeating what Durova (talk · contribs) stated, just not quite so eloquently as Durova did. Suffice to say I completely agree with Durova's reasoning here. This board is not and should nto be a process change; it's just a different place to have the discussion. --Isotope23 16:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Just to clarify, there's been an active discussion at the talk page of WP:BAN for a week about what actually constitutes a community siteban. Before that discussion opened I was unaware that significant differences of opinion exist and I wish to affirm that regardless of that discussion's outcome CSN remains a useful noticeboard. Durova^Charge! 16:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Nuke it from orbit, it's the only way to be sure. Or redirect to Community Lynching Noticeboard. Luigi30 (Taλk) 17:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Alright, let's ask again. Can you point to one case where such a "lynching" has actually occurred, where a ban was placed improperly? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
    • ...and I would add that if the primary argument against this is misuse of community bans, this page doesn't make that any more of a reality than if we had the discussion at AN or ANI; the outcome will be the same there as here, just with more edit conflicts and a more befuddled archive of the matter.--Isotope23 17:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• As far as an example of misuse, please see above where I pointed out that Wikipedia:Community_sanction_noticeboard#Lovelight could have been resolved by a RFC, instead of an outright ban. At least a RFC would have seen more commenters then the few that commented there. Infact the user was even asking for a RFC, and likely would have held his or her contentious edits till after the Request for comment. So I'd say that community ban did not need to take place. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 17:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • That user had a substantial history of previous blocks and declined the option of appealing the outcome to ArbCom. A user conduct RFC could have opened while that discussion was ongoing, but as far as I can see nobody actually tried to initiate one. I'd be willing to discuss this with Lovelight via e-mail and help craft an alternate resolution if he or she wishes to return. If this is the worst example anyone can find, I'd say the board works pretty well. If the board disappeared it would be less easy to remedy such problems (if this even is one). Durova^Charge! 17:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Actually I've not done any digging, that one was pointed out to me. How about someone justify why this board is even needed? Show me some examples of "bans" that could not take place elsewhere? I don't see why this board, which was formally a place to post things to get wider community views on is needed to "ratify" bans. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 17:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
    • (repeated from above) the admin noticeboards are extreemly long anyway, and expecting non-admins to trawl through a large amount of non-relevant information isn't very considerate. Addhoc 17:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
      • So instead we should leave people's fate in the hands of a small noticeboard that not as well looked over as WP:AN or WP:ANI? (WP:AN is not all that bad by the way, and bans could be put there). Frankly I'm not happy with what I see, voting on bans of editors, not good. In addition I'm still waiting on replies to the arguments for deletion. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 17:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Having tried extensively to work with Lovelight, I can pretty definitively say that that one was headed for a ban. It's also pretty indicative of poor research here that no one's brought up that an RfC was opened on Lovelight, and showed no indication of changing the "I can revert anytime I want so long as I'm sure I'm right" attitude. Nor had extensive discussion with the editor done anything to change this. Even now, were Lovelight to come back around and say "Alright, look, I realize I really screwed up, but I'm going to do better", I'd strongly consider an unblock. I think (s)he had potential, but the way it was going, a ban was inevitable. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
          • Mmm ok, if you say so, though another thing I don't like, how come this took place while lovelight was blocked, ie, lovelight was unable to reply on that thread. Even arbcom has higher standards then that. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 17:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
          • Also... I'm still waiting for arguments on why this is needed in the first place. Whats wrong with WP:AN, which was going just fine as of Jan 1. In addition I do not see any replies to Dmcdevit's well written arguments. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 17:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
            • (copied again from above) expecting non-admins to trawl through a large amount of non-relevant information isn't very considerate. Addhoc 18:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
              • See my strong keep vote above and my threaded statements. I'm the editor who proposed this board. After several months of working with the community sanctions process I suggested the board would be a good idea for several reasons. Other editors surprised me with widespread and prompt agreement. It's worked well and I really think the reasons for this nomination are based on misunderstandings. Durova^Charge! 18:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
                • As to Eagle's question above, Lovelight was notified of the situation, and I offered to copy any comments (s)he had to the discussion on their behalf, as did several other editors. As I recall, some comments were made and copied. ArbCom has before asked blocked editors to submit statements and evidence by email. Lovelight was not kept in the dark or denied the opportunity to reply and comment. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I still don't see any counter to Dmcdevit's arguments. I'd also like to note that there is now an easy way to search AN and ANI archives. Kindly click over to this script written by GM, here. All archives of AN and ANI are searchable, and are thus very easy to find past banning discussions. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 18:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

For one thing, that tool wouldn't have helped me last week when I needed to perform a search and couldn't recall a sockmaster's username. That tool also does nothing to address the other uses of that noticeboard, or to address the fact that non-sysops have little reason to slog through these lengthy and primarily administrative boards in search of occasional ban discussions. Also that tool is of little value for survey purposes: it provides information to people who already know exactly what they're seeking, which is only one of many uses for an archive. Durova^Charge! 21:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Durova well Keep in mind that this board's "small" number of arhives is only temporary, provided that this passes MFD, (not that I think it should) the archives will only grow in number, so that argument on how the archives are simpler to search does not make much sense to me. Having the tool at least allows you to search for part of say... one of the socks, or someone else that you saw edit that discussion. Heck if you edited the discussion then you can do <yournamehere> AND <something that you recall in the discussion>. In any case I feel the arguments to delete are far stronger then those to keep, sorry. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 21:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Dmcdevit's arguments were the board isn't perfect. Several editors have already commented the board should be kept and improved. What's with not reading the discussion? Addhoc 18:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow.. I have :) Don't worry. But I don't think you can fix something like this, especially when the previous method was working just fine. I found it rather scary that somebody did not like my unblock of an editor, (mind you thats per policy) and after I reported to ANI, they took it to the community sanction noticeboard. Something with that is just wrong, I'm sorry. ANI is just fine. For ban discusssions use WP:AN, which does not get all that much traffic for its visablitity. Also I'd suggest that you re-read the arguments, they are that the philosophy behind the board is flawed. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 18:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Before this board community bans were mostly done without non-admin input, now the community input is greater, while the final decision is still with the admins. Working just fine. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per HighInBC just above. GlassFET 18:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Incinerate --Durin 18:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Just another random note, how did WP:CN grant itself the ability to do community "revert parole". Has it become a mini arbcom or something? see here. Please clarify if it is or is not able to do that vie existing policy. If its not able to I'm wondering why nobody has commented saying "we can't do that". If it is able to why? Where is the discussion about that particular power? —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 18:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom approved of such partial-sanctions when they endorsed a topic ban that the community placed, and somebody took to ArbCom. SirFozzie 18:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Eh really? did they specifically endorse the community noticeboard handing them out? (note the noticeboard is by all means not the full community) I find that rather bizarre. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 19:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes they did. If my memory serves me right, the person who was bringing it even said that it was an invalid topic ban because the CSN board did it, and that the CSN did not have the mandate to do so. The ARbCom folks said "Decline, and endorse/ratify community sanctions"). I'll try to find it, but since the ArbCom folks don't archive declined ArbCom cases, it may take some time. SirFozzie 19:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Found it, it involved User: Gordon Watts, who was given a topic ban on articles relating to Terry Schiavo [1] SirFozzie 20:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy. --Durin 18:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep per Durova and HighInBC. In addition, one has to consider instances where no admin in his right mind would unblock a particularly onerous user, but there would be a chance that he'd be able to force his way back on via legal action. Good example of this is the Licorne manner. From what I've read of the matter, a year-long ban imposed by ArbCom was unilaterally extended to indefinite by one admin, with no discussion whatsoever. I thought of the possibility that he didn't know his year-long block had been extended to indefinite, and tried to come back only to find out he couldn't edit. Now how's that gonna look in court? Plus, this serves as a safety valve in case the evidence to support a ban isn't as solid as it looks on paper.

Now granted, there are exceptional situations where a ban shouldn't be discussed, but to my mind, you'd better have a pretty damned compelling reason not to do so (example, the Nathanrdotcom affair).Blueboy96 18:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

And that could not have been raised on WP:AN why? —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 18:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

For the sake of Wikipedia's image--I would think we would want to avoid the perception that Wikipedia is run by a "cabal." The Nathanrdotcom affair, from what I've read of it, was an emergency example where he should have been nuked, the blocking admin disclosing that this was an emergency example not to be discussed on-wiki, and that should have been that (without going into the gory details of it).Blueboy96 19:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Err what? so posting on AN is cabalish? How is posting on CN not cabalish then? I'm not sure your example applies here. (please note I'm ttalking about all cases, not just nathen.) —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 19:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Retire and Tag as historic per Dmcdevit's rationale. CSN seems to be just a formal (read bureaucratic) package of what AN/ANI already did quite efficiently. --Srikeit 18:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Dmcdevit. If we need a new page for something like this, it will be better to start fresh under a new name to make it clear that the "policy" contemplated by this page was mistaken and counter to our traditions.--Jimbo Wales 19:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you! - David Gerard 19:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Severe reform or deletion Tag as historic. Virtual committees form into oligarchies. And many of the discussions there have turned into votes and into lynchmobs. "One pitchfork-wielding villager, one vote" is not really a formula for consensus. The administrative issues can and should be dealt with on the administrator's noticeboard or sub-boards; the non-administrative issues already have several village pump sub-pages. This page is redundant for harmless uses and dangerous for the harmful ones that got it flagged with this proposed deletion - David Gerard 19:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete; the board has had a few months, and has not differentiated itself substantially from the discussion that took place at the administrator's noticeboard. It remains a much lower-profile location. Given the importance of these discussions, they should ideally occur at the highest-profile page, which is WP:AN. I think it would be best to fold this noticeboard back into the main administrator's noticeboard. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Recognize emerging consensus (including input from Jimbo) that the page should not continue as is. Therefore, tag page and archives as historic (alternative to "delete" as there were discussions that took place on this board that may need to be referred to in the future). Continue community discussion regarding appropriate procedures going forward. Give the Arbitration Committee a heads-up that they will be seeing some RfAr's that might otherwise have wound up on this board. Give the people who initiated this Board (particularly User:Durova) credit for a creative attempt to address issues even though some users believe it didn't work out as well as they hoped. Newyorkbrad 19:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Of course. Historic is quite correct - David Gerard 19:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete re nominator and seems like a back door way to ban users wheras I think the arbcom is the place for that in any case involving an established user, SqueakBox 19:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Retire and mark historical (or rejected) per Dmcdevit's reasoning. There's no real need to delete this outright, since information from previous discussions may be useful in dispute resolution. --Coredesat 20:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I'm not sure where those favoring deletion are proposing discussion about potential community bans should be held. Or is this really just an attempt to get rid of community bans? It's not clear from the nomination. Definitely keep, since the community needs the ability to ban chronically disruptive users without having to take each to arbcom, and there needs to be a central location for discussion of these decisions. --Minderbinder 20:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Err, no it would simply return to what we did before this came into being. :) Don't worry community bans will be with us for a long time to come, but hopefuly without the needless instruction creep. WP:AN is more then enough :) —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 21:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Retire and mark historical Despite sounding less inclusive, administrors noticeboards fulfill same function. I do suggest the administrator noticeboard should change name. Though the admins are ones who take action, others are should take part in discussion too. nadav 20:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. These conversations will happen elsewhere if this page is closed, but then it will be harder keep track of them. We should have a page to document the most severe cases of disruptive editing. If you dislike the name of this page or introductory comments, then let's fix them. Jehochman (^talk/_contrib) 20:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Because.... sigh.... people are dumb. And Dmcdevit. -M^ask? 21:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Apologies. Something really wierd happened to this page some time after I created it, based on the conversation here. Apparently somewhere along the line it got renamed to Community sanction noticeboard, and since that day, people started looking at me funny. It took me a while to realize why, and what had happened. I never intended to cause this much trouble. My sincere apologies. --Kim Bruning 21:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Community input is good. Plays a different roll than the other noticeboards (all of which are dysfunctional). We should be encouraging its use. --JJay 22:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per the excellent reasoning by Dmcdevit. If community bans must be 'codified', then a proper place in the dispute resolution process should be made...somewhere after RFCs, Mediation, possibly even after ArbCom fails. It should not be easy, or casual, or hidden on a page that attracts it's own culture like RFA. That, in my mind, is the most frightening aspect. If one admin can block, and the other 1,199 won't undo it...then that's as easy as it should be. Anything that needs discussions, policy squables, wheel wars, can sort it self out in dispute resolution.--InkSplotch 22:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment Easy like creating a thread on AN saying "Anyone know a reason why I shouldn't block User X?", AN is JUST as hidden as CSN.. considering they're in the same top bar at the whole family of AN/ANI/CSN etcetera pages. And as for "Attracting its own culture" (which is scary to you), Please don't tell me that AN/ANI doesn't have its own culture. In fact considering that one of the reasons CSN was created in the first part was to get away from the AN/ANI subculture and get you know, non-administrators input (funny thing, non-admins feeling like they don't belong to an ADMINISTRATOR'S noticceboard?) to decisions.. I'm sorry, none of your arguments pass the smell test. SirFozzie 23:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Break 2

Delete This is Votes for Banning, nothing more. When someone decided that all old bans needed to be formally ratified, that's when I knew this had jumped the shark. I respect Durvoa's ideals, intent, and hard work, but this just isn't the way we should be doing things. Thatcher131 23:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)