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