Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Community sanction/Header

Regarding the header

About the noticebox, which part do you disagree with? Navou ^banter / _contribs 16:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should start with a boldfaced line such as "this board is for deciding community bans" or somesuch. Other than that it seems fine. Radiant! 10:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slim, WP:VOTE is the applicable guidline for not voting in this case. WP:BAN is the applicable guideline for not voting also. Consensus is not polling. Navou ^banter / _contribs 13:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that in general it's good to point out that a mere votecount is insufficient to ban anyone. Otherwise this would just encourage people to pileup against some editor they don't like. Radiant! 14:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The wording of the header

We do need to direct people to WP:ANI. I've sene several recent misfilings of cases that belonged, at most, on WP:ANI. I've explained on Navou's talk page:

'I've restored that strong wording at the very top because I think it needs to be spelled out. Several recent discussions started on the noticeboard have been by people who just want someone blocked, and when you examine the target of the request it emerges that they've never even been blocked before. --Tony Sidaway 20:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense, I have also added what I believe to be some clarification. Navou ^banter 20:53, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We're still getting frivolous cases on this page

So I've added this wording to the header:

If you bring a case here involving a person who has never even been blocked, it is liable to be removed without notice.

--Tony Sidaway 03:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I should add something stronger. Perhaps:

Wikipedia does not normally consider bans to be a first resort.

I'm very worried about the kind of really low profile cases that are being brought to this page.

--Tony Sidaway 03:27, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]