[WikiEN-l] Why am I being blocked?

Thu Sep 29 18:30:27 UTC 2005

On Thu, 29 Sep 2005, Poor, Edmund W wrote:

> > Well, let me put it this way: if someone (say, Admin Example)
> > reverts a block on a given troublemaker for whatever reason,
> > then the troublemaker becomes that person's (i.e. Admin
> > Example's) problem. The Admin who blocked the troublemaker in
> > the first place should be allowed to go on with her/his
> > business on Wikipedia.
> >
> > That's my opinion on the matter. YMMV.
> >
> > Geoff
>
> It sounds like the Admins need a coordinator or manager. I'd be happy to
> volunteer for that job. (Any Admins who want me to manage them, email me
> or leave me a note on my talk page.{

It does? That's a surprise to me -- & I'm the one who came up with this
interpretation. As of this writing, I don't know if anyone else on
Wikipedia agrees with me, so creating "a coordinator or manager" would
just be one more example of instruction creep.

What I'm saying is common sense: if someone asks me as an admin to lift
a block, one of the first things I should do -- if I want to be
responsible -- is a little research to learn why that person got banned
in the first place. Maybe a newbie made a mistake; maybe an admin
made a mistake. Or maybe I've been approached by the latest sockpuppet
of (insert your choice of headache-inducing troublemaker here).

And if I lift the ban, then it is also my responsibility to follow the
user for a while -- maybe a day or two -- just to make sure I did the
right thing. Some veteran troublemakers have learned how to believably
pass themselves off as a newbie who made an honest mistake: I know I've
been fooled once or twice (but fortunately I learned of my misjudgement
before I lifted a block).

Sheesh, if we need managers (or similar ilk) to make us use common sense
on Wikipedia, maybe should close the whole project down & pass the
task back to Brittanica or Encarta.
>
> I've already taken on the role of Coordinator by creating and
> maintaining [[Wikipedia:Account suspensions]]. It survived a vote and
> has received community approval. A number of Admins have used it.
>
> It's for those cases which are not clearcut: things other than "simple
> vandalism" or "3RR violation". Anything where you're not sure enough to
> do it by yourself, quietly, but you don't want to make a big arbcom
> matter out of it.
>
On one hand, this appears to be what I was asking for a few emails back:
when one Admin is bold, let the rest of us know. But on the other, there
is now Yet Another Forum to Read to determine if someone is
a troublemaker. One of the current weaknesses with Wikipedia is that to
do a consciencious job, a member -- whether an Admin, a contributor, or
simply anyone interested in doing more than proofreading or making a
random contribution -- has to follow an increasing number of fora to
keep up with guidelines, proposals & the usual 100 & 1 things needed to
do a good job. (For example, I've stayed away from helping with the
backlog of closing articles at either AfD or the Copyvios because the
process as explained is too difficult to understand. [[WP:IAR]] only
works for a limited number of similar cases.)

The Signpost was one solution to this problem, but keeping something
like it going can be a big job in itself, & I wonder if it will scale
in step with this proliferation of discussion sites.

Maybe I need a Wikivacation. Too many of my last emails have been
rants.

Geoff