[WikiEN-l] The userbox fad

Tue Jan 3 20:06:59 UTC 2006

slimvirgin at gmail.com wrote:
> I was wondering why you were being aggressive, Chris, but now I
> realize you're User:Talrias, the admin who reduced Marsden's block
> twice, even though, as I believe you admitted, you were unfamiliar
> with the situation. Without wanting to get into a row with you, I must
> admit that that was the kind of incident that has caused me concern,
> though by no means the only one. I want to stress that I'm not
> alleging bad faith, but I feel that admins have to be able to trust
> each other's judgement, even when we may disagree with it, so that
> blocks aren't constantly being done and undone; and that speaks
> directly to the issue of how we elect new admins, because if we want
> to trust their judgement, and have them trust ours, there has to be a
> shared philosophy or vision, and that requires a minimum amount of
> community interaction before they're promoted. Without community
> interaction, there's no respect for the community. But with too much
> community interaction, there might be less respect for the
> encyclopedia. So electing admins who have the right balance of edits
> is a tricky business, a very "big deal" in my view.

I wasn't being agressive because it was you, please don't think that. I 
would have said the same, whoever made the point you did (and in fact, 
I've replied in kind to other people who have said similar things). I 
just don't agree with what you're saying.

Yes, I am unfamiliar with Marsden's situation. The only contact I have 
had with him was a question he asked me on my ArbCom candidacy 
statement, my reply, and a follow-up comment he made. The question he 
left was perfectly civil, and his follow-up comment was a bit "cabal 
theoryish" but didn't contain any personal attacks or rude comments. 
That's my background experience with him. My actions on his blocking 
weren't at all related to this, in fact I did not recognise the name 
from my ArbCom candidacy until afterwards.

I explained my reasons for reducing the length of Marsden's block at the 
time - they were, and still are, that I am perfectly willing to accept a 
time-limited block of a user from another admin. Admins are chosen by 
the community and are on the whole a pretty responsible bunch. I'm trust 
them to block when appropriate and when blocks are inappropriate. 
However, what I don't do, is assume that when an admin blocks 
permanently, the person being blocked actually deserves a permanent 
block. If someone is going to be indefinitely banned from contributing 
to Wikipedia, that is indeed something. I hope that Wikipedia will be 
around in 10 years' time, and a number of indefinitely banned people 
will have matured significantly and may consider contributing to 
Wikipedia, but won't because of immature behaviour on their parts 10 
years previously. Yes, one contributor to Wikipedia is not going to make 
a significant difference, but I think we should be fair with our blocks 
and bans. I don't think banning indefinitely is fair, but if we're going 
to do it, I think it should come from the Arbitration Committee, which 
despite its flaws does look over each bit of evidence, gives the person 
a chance to explain their actions and typically comes to a fair decision 
when blocking annoying contributors.

I've heard it argued that the Arbitration Committee would come to the 
same decision anyway, so what's the point in hearing the case in the 
first place? I respectfully disagree with this point of view. An 
Arbitration Committee case typically has evidence attached which makes 
it possible for uninvolved bystanders to review and form their own 
decisions on the merits of the ban. Blocking by community typically 
comes with few pieces of evidence which makes it more difficult to form 
a fair opinion. I found the argument on the admins' noticeboard for 
limiting the block duration more persuasive than having an indefinite 
ban, so I shortened the duration of the ban, rather than removing it 
completely - as I respect that other admins have already blocked him for 
disruptive behaviour. I'm quite willing to take this on good faith. I 
just don't like the idea that someone can be blocked indefinitely by an 
admin, especially since Marsden's talk page has hardly any reasoning for 
the block, nor is the block reason for him particularly descriptive - it 
now says "Snowspinner was right". I want more than this. I don't think 
that's too much to ask.

Thanks for giving me the chance to expand my previous comments on this,

Chris