Timwi timwi@gmx.net wrote:
Leif Knutsen wrote:
If I am not unblocked immediately, I am happy to find another hobby. I believe my contributions speak for themselves - that would be a great loss for the WP community.
And again. Why do newbies keep posting this? How many people actually fall for this? How many people actually read this and go "OMG we're gonna lose a valuable contributor! Must unblock quick!!!"?
I'll remember next time to show greater humility before all those wiser than me, but perhaps you will also let me know when I've edited enough articles to move from being "newbie" to "peon cadet," or whatever the next level is.
I do appreciate the need to enforce rules and be consistent about it, but I also think that a) a warning is in order before blocking someone; b) the person who is being blocked should have some means of defending his/her actions; and c) it should always raise flags in a situation like this, when the person (an admin) whose deletions were reverted reported the reverts; and another, who only a few weeks before had lost a dispute with me, jumped at the opportunity to block me. I'll grant they both acted within the letter of the law, so to speak, but they both misbehaved - and badly. If there's a pattern of such misconduct over time among such admins, they shouldn't be admins - after all, being an admin involves a responsibility that is greater than being an editor, as this episode amply demonstrates.
As for my "threat," it was meant earnestly. I work 60 hour weeks, am the parent of two kids, one of whom has special needs, and I have a long commute. I am doing this partly because I think it's fun and partly because I think it's important. I expect lots of disagreements here, and plenty of obnoxious, unreasonable, and ignorant people. But I also expect that the role of admin is taken seriously. You all don't have to be perfect, but there's got to be a higher standard among you; and I can safely predict that this whole enterprise will collapse under its own weight unless the responsibility of doing the right thing isn't reinforced and if necessary enforced. The two individuals who (probably inadvertently) colluded to block me should be ashamed of their actions, and I'll stand by that.
All the best,
Leifern
Not to comment on the specifics of your case, but don't forget that other people have their own stories and their own hardships.
Leif Knutsen wrote:
I'll remember next time to show greater humility before all those wiser than me, but perhaps you will also let me know when I've edited enough articles to move from being "newbie" to "peon cadet," or whatever the next level is.
I do appreciate the need to enforce rules and be consistent about it, but I also think that a) a warning is in order before blocking someone; b) the person who is being blocked should have some means of defending his/her actions; and c) it should always raise flags in a situation like this, when the person (an admin) whose deletions were reverted reported the reverts; and another, who only a few weeks before had lost a dispute with me, jumped at the opportunity to block me. I'll grant they both acted within the letter of the law, so to speak, but they both misbehaved - and badly. If there's a pattern of such misconduct over time among such admins, they shouldn't be admins - after all, being an admin involves a responsibility that is greater than being an editor, as this episode amply demonstrates.
As for my "threat," it was meant earnestly. I work 60 hour weeks, am the parent of two kids, one of whom has special needs, and I have a long commute. I am doing this partly because I think it's fun and partly because I think it's important. I expect lots of disagreements here, and plenty of obnoxious, unreasonable, and ignorant people. But I also expect that the role of admin is taken seriously. You all don't have to be perfect, but there's got to be a higher standard among you; and I can safely predict that this whole enterprise will collapse under its own weight unless the responsibility of doing the right thing isn't reinforced and if necessary enforced. The two individuals who (probably inadvertently) colluded to block me should be ashamed of their actions, and I'll stand by that.
All the best,
Leifern _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
As we have seen numerous times in the past, users who are new to the Wikipedia tend to vastly overreact to being blocked. Some people throw quite a fit even when they're blocked for a mere 24 hours.
A friend of mine suggested that perhaps the word should be changed to something more euphemistic and something less harsh than "block". I can sympathise with this thinking, because if I saw a page telling me I'm "blocked", not knowing what it means I would probably interpret it to mean "blocked indefinitely", and as we know people don't tend to read the entire message and hence don't notice where it mentions the time limit.
Unfortunately, he didn't have any ideas what to call it instead. So I'm wondering what everyone else here thinks?
Timwi wrote:
A friend of mine suggested that perhaps the word should be changed to
something more euphemistic >and something less harsh than "block".
Hmm... I can't come up with a single word that does better than "block". What about "administrative review"? "Temporary leave"? "Enforced hiatus"?
Jim Redmond [[User:Jredmond]]
"You are blocked for 24 hours" is honest. Euphamisms seek to present something as what it is not, and so are dishonest. I would very much object to any change.
Joseph Reagle said:
On Tuesday 10 May 2005 12:16, Jim Redmond wrote:
Hmm... I can't come up with a single word that does better than "block". What about "administrative review"? "Temporary leave"? "Enforced hiatus"?
Sabbatical, mini-WikiHoliday?
"Crushed by elephant" works for me.
Tony Sidaway (minorityreport@bluebottle.com) [050511 02:42]:
Joseph Reagle said:
On Tuesday 10 May 2005 12:16, Jim Redmond wrote:
Hmm... I can't come up with a single word that does better than "block". What about "administrative review"? "Temporary leave"? "Enforced hiatus"?
Sabbatical, mini-WikiHoliday?
"Crushed by elephant" works for me.
Or, for those blocked from wikien-l, "crushed by autofellatio". Or was that the people who subscribe to the non-digest?
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
Tony Sidaway (minorityreport@bluebottle.com) [050511 02:42]:
Joseph Reagle said:
On Tuesday 10 May 2005 12:16, Jim Redmond wrote:
Hmm... I can't come up with a single word that does better than "block". What about "administrative review"? "Temporary leave"? "Enforced hiatus"?
Sabbatical, mini-WikiHoliday?
"Crushed by elephant" works for me.
Or, for those blocked from wikien-l, "crushed by autofellatio". Or was that the people who subscribe to the non-digest?
You've been a bad widdle editor, and you have to sit by the wall.
People need to put a valid reason in the box when blocking someone. All too often I see someone blocked with a message like "vandalism". How is a user, especially a new one, going to know what they did wrong if people are so unclear about it?
I don't think "block" is a harsh word at all, but the difference between block and ban needs to be explained more clearly in the help pages and the fact it's just temporary needs to be emphasized when blocking.
--Mgm
On 5/11/05, Deathphoenix originaldeathphoenix@gmail.com wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
Tony Sidaway (minorityreport@bluebottle.com) [050511 02:42]:
Joseph Reagle said:
On Tuesday 10 May 2005 12:16, Jim Redmond wrote:
Hmm... I can't come up with a single word that does better than "block". What about "administrative review"? "Temporary leave"? "Enforced hiatus"?
Sabbatical, mini-WikiHoliday?
"Crushed by elephant" works for me.
Or, for those blocked from wikien-l, "crushed by autofellatio". Or was that the people who subscribe to the non-digest?
You've been a bad widdle editor, and you have to sit by the wall.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
People need to put a valid reason in the box when blocking someone. All too often I see someone blocked with a message like "vandalism". How is a user, especially a new one, going to know what they did wrong if people are so unclear about it?
I don't think "block" is a harsh word at all, but the difference between block and ban needs to be explained more clearly in the help pages and the fact it's just temporary needs to be emphasized when blocking.
--Mgm
About a week ago, my IP was blocked. (Not sure if this list supports it, but I'll try and send a screenshot through.) I emailed someone (forget who now, but thankyou to whoever you were :) ) explaining what was going on.
While "blocked" and "blocking policy" are wikilinked, it might not be such a great idea to so publicly advertise the mailing list.
Perhaps reasons should have wikilinks in them, describing the policies which have been violated...
- -- Alphax GnuPG key: 0xF874C613 - http://tinyurl.com/8mpg9 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, 'All right, then, have it your way.' - C. S. Lewis
Alphax wrote:
While "blocked" and "blocking policy" are wikilinked, it might not be such a great idea to so publicly advertise the mailing list.
How else are you going to appeal a block for which the blocking admin has no email specified?
SPUI wrote:
Alphax wrote:
While "blocked" and "blocking policy" are wikilinked, it might not be such a great idea to so publicly advertise the mailing list.
How else are you going to appeal a block for which the blocking admin has no email specified?
Maybe it should be a requirement of adminship that admins list a public email address on their user: page.
-a
Arkady Rose (arkady@arkady.org.uk) [050512 01:44]:
SPUI wrote:
Alphax wrote:
While "blocked" and "blocking policy" are wikilinked, it might not be such a great idea to so publicly advertise the mailing list.
How else are you going to appeal a block for which the blocking admin has no email specified?
Maybe it should be a requirement of adminship that admins list a public email address on their user: page.
Or at least that their Wikipedia user page email work. I find it hard to see how that could be considered onerous.
- d.
By AOL, perhaps, like I did...?
On Wed, 11 May 2005, SPUI wrote:
Alphax wrote:
While "blocked" and "blocking policy" are wikilinked, it might not be such a great idea to so publicly advertise the mailing list.
How else are you going to appeal a block for which the blocking admin has no email specified? _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Don't forget the blocked user needs to have an email adress set in their own preferences to email. They need the mailing list if they want to contact someone.
Requiring admins to have email adresses specified won't solve anything.
--Mgm
On 5/12/05, Richard Rabinowitz rickyrab@eden.rutgers.edu wrote:
By AOL, perhaps, like I did...?
On Wed, 11 May 2005, SPUI wrote:
Alphax wrote:
While "blocked" and "blocking policy" are wikilinked, it might not be such a great idea to so publicly advertise the mailing list.
How else are you going to appeal a block for which the blocking admin has no email specified? _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Not if the admin directly specified the email address on their user page: blocked users are still allowed to navigate to admin pages. Obviously there is the risk of address-harvesting spam bots, but there are simple ways around that, like the email-address-in-an-image that I have on my user page.
Sam
Jim Redmond (jim@scrubnugget.com) [050511 02:16]:
"Enforced hiatus"?
"Edits by this account have been placed on euphemistic administrative hiatus for 24 hours because: you posted D00Dy H3@D 100 times on [[Wikipedia]]."
- d.
ROFL!
On Wed, 11 May 2005, David Gerard wrote:
Jim Redmond (jim@scrubnugget.com) [050511 02:16]:
"Enforced hiatus"?
"Edits by this account have been placed on euphemistic administrative hiatus for 24 hours because: you posted D00Dy H3@D 100 times on [[Wikipedia]]."
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Suspension of editing privileges
Fred
From: Jim Redmond jim@scrubnugget.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 11:16:43 -0500 To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] "block" considered too harsh a word?
Timwi wrote:
A friend of mine suggested that perhaps the word should be changed to
something more euphemistic >and something less harsh than "block".
Hmm... I can't come up with a single word that does better than "block". What about "administrative review"? "Temporary leave"? "Enforced hiatus"?
Jim Redmond [[User:Jredmond]]
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
If users can't be bothered to read the part of the message where it says they've been blocked for just 24 hours, they're going to throw a fit no matter what the word is. "Blocked" itself is a neutral word: it accurately describes the fact that they can no longer edit.
This reminds me of the idea that some schools are now requiring their teachers to grade papers in purple pens, because a red F apparently distresses some students...
Sam -- Asbestos http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Asbestos
On 5/10/05, Timwi timwi@gmx.net wrote:
As we have seen numerous times in the past, users who are new to the Wikipedia tend to vastly overreact to being blocked. Some people throw quite a fit even when they're blocked for a mere 24 hours.
A friend of mine suggested that perhaps the word should be changed to something more euphemistic and something less harsh than "block". I can sympathise with this thinking, because if I saw a page telling me I'm "blocked", not knowing what it means I would probably interpret it to mean "blocked indefinitely", and as we know people don't tend to read the entire message and hence don't notice where it mentions the time limit.
Unfortunately, he didn't have any ideas what to call it instead. So I'm wondering what everyone else here thinks?
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Let's make a contest for political talk :-)
I'd say... in comparison to the usual "you can edit !"
make it "you can not edit !" :-)
Ant
Timwi a écrit:
As we have seen numerous times in the past, users who are new to the Wikipedia tend to vastly overreact to being blocked. Some people throw quite a fit even when they're blocked for a mere 24 hours.
A friend of mine suggested that perhaps the word should be changed to something more euphemistic and something less harsh than "block". I can sympathise with this thinking, because if I saw a page telling me I'm "blocked", not knowing what it means I would probably interpret it to mean "blocked indefinitely", and as we know people don't tend to read the entire message and hence don't notice where it mentions the time limit.
Unfortunately, he didn't have any ideas what to call it instead. So I'm wondering what everyone else here thinks?
On 5/10/05, Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Let's make a contest for political talk :-)
I'd say... in comparison to the usual "you can edit !"
make it "you can not edit !" :-)
Ant
How about something along the lines of "your privilege to edit has been temporarily suspended."
This is quite direct about what exactly has happened, while reminding the user that they have no inherent right to edit. It also emphasizes the temporary-ness of the action.
-- Rich Holton
[[W:en:User:Rholton]]
Richard Holton (richholton@gmail.com) [050511 03:06]:
How about something along the lines of "your privilege to edit has been temporarily suspended." This is quite direct about what exactly has happened, while reminding the user that they have no inherent right to edit. It also emphasizes the temporary-ness of the action.
Judging by the sort of messages we get afterwards, I also predict it will make no difference whatsoever.
- d.
If it is only for a day or two, 'Time Out' with an explanation might do the job.
Timwi writes:
As we have seen numerous times in the past, users who are new to the Wikipedia tend to vastly overreact to being blocked. Some people throw quite a fit even when they're blocked for a mere 24 hours.
A friend of mine suggested that perhaps the word should be changed to something more euphemistic and something less harsh than "block". I can sympathise with this thinking, because if I saw a page telling me I'm "blocked", not knowing what it means I would probably interpret it to mean "blocked indefinitely", and as we know people don't tend to read the entire message and hence don't notice where it mentions the time limit.
Unfortunately, he didn't have any ideas what to call it instead. So I'm wondering what everyone else here thinks?
Timwi wrote:
As we have seen numerous times in the past, users who are new to the Wikipedia tend to vastly overreact to being blocked. Some people throw quite a fit even when they're blocked for a mere 24 hours.
A friend of mine suggested that perhaps the word should be changed to something more euphemistic and something less harsh than "block". I can sympathise with this thinking, because if I saw a page telling me I'm "blocked", not knowing what it means I would probably interpret it to mean "blocked indefinitely", and as we know people don't tend to read the entire message and hence don't notice where it mentions the time limit.
It isn't a question of what you name something. As long as a newbie isn't causing damage or otherwise acting in a hostile way, there should be some latitude given. Before any blocking takes place there should be good faith attempts to contact and reason with him. It may be frustrating to see today's newbie do the same stupid things as last week's newbie, but one cannot assume that he saw the warnings that were given lto ast week's newbie.
A sysop who ignores this and peremptorily and impatiently blocks a newbie deserves the same treatment that he would mete out to the newbie.
Ec
Holiday or vacation?
Fred
From: Timwi timwi@gmx.net Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 17:05:14 +0100 To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] "block" considered too harsh a word?
As we have seen numerous times in the past, users who are new to the Wikipedia tend to vastly overreact to being blocked. Some people throw quite a fit even when they're blocked for a mere 24 hours.
A friend of mine suggested that perhaps the word should be changed to something more euphemistic and something less harsh than "block". I can sympathise with this thinking, because if I saw a page telling me I'm "blocked", not knowing what it means I would probably interpret it to mean "blocked indefinitely", and as we know people don't tend to read the entire message and hence don't notice where it mentions the time limit.
Unfortunately, he didn't have any ideas what to call it instead. So I'm wondering what everyone else here thinks?
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l