On 9/16/07, Wily D wilydoppelganger@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/16/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/16/07, Wily D wilydoppelganger@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/16/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/13/07, Wily D wilydoppelganger@gmail.com wrote:
The short answer is: If I block someone, it's not like I have to respond to their emails anyhow. While it'd be nice to enable an email address - if I'm not taking emails, it'd be better if that was clear, rather than dishonestly letting them sit in an "in" bin forever. Anybody's who's been blocked can request a review from a second admin anyhow {{unblock|reason}}
WilyD
That's a rather hostile attitude to take towards the community of editors, that you can block, and their response to the block doesn't matter.
"Start by finding out when your block will expire.... If you do not wish to wait for your block to expire, you may contact the blocking administrator via email to resolve the problem that led to the block. To use this feature you must have a valid email address registered in your user preferences. If, after discussing the matter with them, you still believe your block is unfair, you may appeal the block by requesting that another administrator review your block.
But it's a total lie that "you may contact the blocking administrator via e-mail to resolve the problem." Becaue you can't contact the blocking administrator via email and even if you can, they don't have to respond, and they're rather smug about telling everyone they're free to ignore you.
What's wrong with this picture? Just about everything.
So, in other words, it should say, "You may attempt to contact the blocking administrator via e-mail" but the blocking adminstrator is not required to have e-mail enabled, and might not respond to you, and damn proudly not respond, either.
KP
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
KP
Please don't misunderstand me. I pre-emptively offer to undo almost every block it's realistic for I'm involved in. I mostly get criticising for offering to unblock people, not block them. And I don't think anyone's going to fault me for not listening, even if I might not ever be won over. Roughly speaking, the attitude I'm presenting there is not my own, but I acknowledge that it may exist and then what?
My point is just that requiring admins to enable email so people they've blocked can email them is pointless. {{unblock|reason}} is by far the best way to challenge an inappropriate block. Then you'll get someone who is looking to review blocks. Not all admins *do* respond to every request of them, sometimes for good reasons, maybe sometimes for bad.
Regards WilyD
But that's not what the instructions for unblock say. They say to discuss it first with the blocking admin, and IF you do that are unsuccessful you may then proceed to request a review. They don't say use {{unblock|reason}}. By not enabling email you' ve denied people you've blocked any access to requesting an unblock.
I've been blocked once, by an admin who has gone through a couple of RFCs and an ArbCom. When I emailed a request to him to be unblocked he posted nasty comments about my email, lied, to incite me on AN/I. It was a stunning display of boorish and immature behaviour, though certainly not unexpected from an admin who called an editor a douche. If I could have bipassed e-mailing the little twirp, I certainly would have, but it was clear that I was supposed to request unblock from the little shit first.
Now you tell me you can't be bothered to even get e-mails. If the policy requires you to email the blocking admin first in order to appeal the block, then all blocking admins should enable their email. Or admins should just admit that blocks are not appealable and they have the power to do whatever they want regardless.
This is grossly insulting to us worthless little shit peon editors on Wikipedia whatever the reason.
It is.
KP
The blocking message: Start by finding out when your block will expire. Go to my contributions and follow the Block log link at the top of the page. If there are no blocks listed, or the latest one has already expired, then you have been autoblocked. Please follow the instructions listed in the section (on AutoBlocking) below. If you do not wish to wait for your block to expire, you may contact the blocking administrator via email to resolve the problem that led to the block. To use this feature you must have a valid email address registered in your user preferences. If, after discussing the matter with them, you still believe your block is unfair, you may appeal the block by requesting that another administrator review your block. To do so, add
{{unblock|your reason here}} to the bottom of your user talk page (which you can edit while blocked, unless it is protected) to request unblocking. Please be aware that abuse of this template will result in protection of that page.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
KP
If you'll look at the list of admins without emails enabled, you'll see my name isn't on the list. If you look through my block log, you'll see I've reduced a block in response to an unblock request, and that none of my other blocks have been undone by anyone.
Beyond that, I would agree the phrasing should be changed to suggest the "best" practice should be to discuss it with the blocking admin, who is probably far more likely to reverse or reduce the block than anyone else is anyways, and that the "alternative" practice is the unblock template.
Everything can be undone, any block can be appealed (including to the unblock mailing list). I agree that your scenario might be grossly insulting if it were true. But it's not. Blocks are easily appealable.
In any event, I've fixed the blocking message.
Cheers, WilyD
Blocks are NOT easily appealable when you have a hostile and petty blocking administrator and a policy that requires you to contact him first. And when you don't realize that you're not required to contact him first in spite of the blocking message which tells you that.
And, when you're a new contributor to Wikipedia and you get blocked and you don't know your way around, it is NOT CLEAR that the instructions are not meant to be followed.
And this gets tiresome being told that the instructions are not meant to be followed and everybody knows their way around them, as if I'm stupid for not realizing that the instructions don't mean what they say, and I shouldn't be following them but some other set of guidelines.
I am getting the idea ingrained into my head, though, from a couple of past conversations with administrators, that I AM a total idiot for trying to follow instructions on Wikipedia.
It's not an issue of just you, it's an issue of the system being set up in a way that is hostile to the average user. Instructions that shouldn't be followed. Experienced users dismissing the confusion of inexperienced users by saying, "oh blocks are easily appealable," when the inexerienced user points out they are not. If you already know everything, you probably don't even know what the instructions say. But if you don't already know everything, you can't possibly know that it's easy to do as long as you don't bother with the instructions.
It is very frustrating when Wikipedia is treated as a closed club of those who already know everything (blocks are easily appealed) excluding those who are just here to edit and don't know the easy way to do things that don't appear in the instructions.
The blocking message still says the same thing it did.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Blockedtext
KP
On 9/16/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/16/07, Wily D wilydoppelganger@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/16/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/16/07, Wily D wilydoppelganger@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/16/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/13/07, Wily D wilydoppelganger@gmail.com wrote:
The short answer is: If I block someone, it's not like I have to respond to their emails anyhow. While it'd be nice to enable an email address - if I'm not taking emails, it'd be better if that was clear, rather than dishonestly letting them sit in an "in" bin forever. Anybody's who's been blocked can request a review from a second admin anyhow {{unblock|reason}}
WilyD
That's a rather hostile attitude to take towards the community of editors, that you can block, and their response to the block doesn't matter.
"Start by finding out when your block will expire.... If you do not wish to wait for your block to expire, you may contact the blocking administrator via email to resolve the problem that led to the block. To use this feature you must have a valid email address registered in your user preferences. If, after discussing the matter with them, you still believe your block is unfair, you may appeal the block by requesting that another administrator review your block.
But it's a total lie that "you may contact the blocking administrator via e-mail to resolve the problem." Becaue you can't contact the blocking administrator via email and even if you can, they don't have to respond, and they're rather smug about telling everyone they're free to ignore you.
What's wrong with this picture? Just about everything.
So, in other words, it should say, "You may attempt to contact the blocking administrator via e-mail" but the blocking adminstrator is not required to have e-mail enabled, and might not respond to you, and damn proudly not respond, either.
KP
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
KP
Please don't misunderstand me. I pre-emptively offer to undo almost every block it's realistic for I'm involved in. I mostly get criticising for offering to unblock people, not block them. And I don't think anyone's going to fault me for not listening, even if I might not ever be won over. Roughly speaking, the attitude I'm presenting there is not my own, but I acknowledge that it may exist and then what?
My point is just that requiring admins to enable email so people they've blocked can email them is pointless. {{unblock|reason}} is by far the best way to challenge an inappropriate block. Then you'll get someone who is looking to review blocks. Not all admins *do* respond to every request of them, sometimes for good reasons, maybe sometimes for bad.
Regards WilyD
But that's not what the instructions for unblock say. They say to discuss it first with the blocking admin, and IF you do that are unsuccessful you may then proceed to request a review. They don't say use {{unblock|reason}}. By not enabling email you' ve denied people you've blocked any access to requesting an unblock.
I've been blocked once, by an admin who has gone through a couple of RFCs and an ArbCom. When I emailed a request to him to be unblocked he posted nasty comments about my email, lied, to incite me on AN/I. It was a stunning display of boorish and immature behaviour, though certainly not unexpected from an admin who called an editor a douche. If I could have bipassed e-mailing the little twirp, I certainly would have, but it was clear that I was supposed to request unblock from the little shit first.
Now you tell me you can't be bothered to even get e-mails. If the policy requires you to email the blocking admin first in order to appeal the block, then all blocking admins should enable their email. Or admins should just admit that blocks are not appealable and they have the power to do whatever they want regardless.
This is grossly insulting to us worthless little shit peon editors on Wikipedia whatever the reason.
It is.
KP
The blocking message: Start by finding out when your block will expire. Go to my contributions and follow the Block log link at the top of the page. If there are no blocks listed, or the latest one has already expired, then you have been autoblocked. Please follow the instructions listed in the section (on AutoBlocking) below. If you do not wish to wait for your block to expire, you may contact the blocking administrator via email to resolve the problem that led to the block. To use this feature you must have a valid email address registered in your user preferences. If, after discussing the matter with them, you still believe your block is unfair, you may appeal the block by requesting that another administrator review your block. To do so, add
{{unblock|your reason here}} to the bottom of your user talk page (which you can edit while blocked, unless it is protected) to request unblocking. Please be aware that abuse of this template will result in protection of that page.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
KP
If you'll look at the list of admins without emails enabled, you'll see my name isn't on the list. If you look through my block log, you'll see I've reduced a block in response to an unblock request, and that none of my other blocks have been undone by anyone.
Beyond that, I would agree the phrasing should be changed to suggest the "best" practice should be to discuss it with the blocking admin, who is probably far more likely to reverse or reduce the block than anyone else is anyways, and that the "alternative" practice is the unblock template.
Everything can be undone, any block can be appealed (including to the unblock mailing list). I agree that your scenario might be grossly insulting if it were true. But it's not. Blocks are easily appealable.
In any event, I've fixed the blocking message.
Cheers, WilyD
Blocks are NOT easily appealable when you have a hostile and petty blocking administrator and a policy that requires you to contact him first. And when you don't realize that you're not required to contact him first in spite of the blocking message which tells you that.
And, when you're a new contributor to Wikipedia and you get blocked and you don't know your way around, it is NOT CLEAR that the instructions are not meant to be followed.
And this gets tiresome being told that the instructions are not meant to be followed and everybody knows their way around them, as if I'm stupid for not realizing that the instructions don't mean what they say, and I shouldn't be following them but some other set of guidelines.
I am getting the idea ingrained into my head, though, from a couple of past conversations with administrators, that I AM a total idiot for trying to follow instructions on Wikipedia.
It's not an issue of just you, it's an issue of the system being set up in a way that is hostile to the average user. Instructions that shouldn't be followed. Experienced users dismissing the confusion of inexperienced users by saying, "oh blocks are easily appealable," when the inexerienced user points out they are not. If you already know everything, you probably don't even know what the instructions say. But if you don't already know everything, you can't possibly know that it's easy to do as long as you don't bother with the instructions.
It is very frustrating when Wikipedia is treated as a closed club of those who already know everything (blocks are easily appealed) excluding those who are just here to edit and don't know the easy way to do things that don't appear in the instructions.
The blocking message still says the same thing it did.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Blockedtext
KP
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Err, yes. The instructions are often terrible and confusing. If there's a problem with the instructions, fix them. Beyond that .. yes, it's not always easy to find stuff. And yeah, instructions are often bad or out of date, trying to follow them doesn't always work. I was an inexperienced editor once, and didn't always find the help I looked for. I learnt, and now I can usually find it. But how do we fix that? We help people that need it. We fix instructions that need fixing.
I only meant to say that forcing every admin to turn on email wasn't a good solution, because it wouldn't work. The same problem remained. It's all well and good to be upset that the problem exists, better is to fix it. Solutions that don't fix the problem aren't worth pursuing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki%3ABlockedtext&diff=1... the blocked message does not say the same thing it did. Try clearing your cache.
Cheers, WilyD
Err, yes. The instructions are often terrible and confusing. If there's a problem with the instructions, fix them. Beyond that .. yes, it's not always easy to find stuff. And yeah, instructions are often bad or out of date, trying to follow them doesn't always work. I was an inexperienced editor once, and didn't always find the help I looked for. I learnt, and now I can usually find it. But how do we fix that? We help people that need it. We fix instructions that need fixing.
I only meant to say that forcing every admin to turn on email wasn't a good solution, because it wouldn't work. The same problem remained. It's all well and good to be upset that the problem exists, better is to fix it. Solutions that don't fix the problem aren't worth pursuing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki%3ABlockedtext&diff=1... the blocked message does not say the same thing it did. Try clearing your cache.
Cheers, WilyD
I put up a note to discuss changing the wording and got no response. I mentioned the problem on AN/I. Since I can barely find most directions on Wikipedia, much less follow them, and don't really know what the instructions should read, or how it works, simply because the directions are imcomprehenisble, how am I going to fix anything?
KP
On 16/09/2007, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
The blocking message still says the same thing it did.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Blockedtext
KP
Someone should go change the instructions.
Also, while you are at it, please change the background colour of the blocking reason surrounding to a nice, relaxing #330033 (which, by the way, is on the browser-safe colour palette) and get rid of the annoying Stop x nuvola.svg . This will make the blocking notice more relaxing to encounter.
: )
On 9/16/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
The blocking message still says the same thing it did.
Not to me, it doesn't:
Your block will expire $6. If you do not wish to wait for your block to expire, you may contact $1 (the blocking administrator) via email to resolve the problem that led to the block. You cannot use the 'email this user' feature unless you have a valid email address registered and confirmed in your user preferences and you have not been blocked from using it. If after discussing the matter with $1, or if you cannot contact $1, and you still believe your block is unfair, you may appeal the block by requesting that another administrator review your block. To do so, add
{{unblock|your reason here}}
to the bottom of your user talk page (which you can edit while blocked, unless it is protected) to request unblocking. Please be aware that abuse of this template will result in protection of that page.
--Darkwind
On 9/16/07, RLS evendell@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/16/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
The blocking message still says the same thing it did.
Not to me, it doesn't:
Your block will expire $6. If you do not wish to wait for your block to expire, you may contact $1 (the blocking administrator) via email to resolve the problem that led to the block. You cannot use the 'email this user' feature unless you have a valid email address registered and confirmed in your user preferences and you have not been blocked from using it. If after discussing the matter with $1, or if you cannot contact $1, and you still believe your block is unfair, you may appeal the block by requesting that another administrator review your block. To do so, add
{{unblock|your reason here}}
to the bottom of your user talk page (which you can edit while blocked, unless it is protected) to request unblocking. Please be aware that abuse of this template will result in protection of that page.
--Darkwind
It's on two pages, one was changed, the other was not. I changed the second one.
KP
On 9/16/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/16/07, RLS evendell@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/16/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
The blocking message still says the same thing it did.
Not to me, it doesn't:
Your block will expire $6. If you do not wish to wait for your block to expire, you may contact $1 (the blocking administrator) via email to resolve the problem that led to the block. You cannot use the 'email this user' feature unless you have a valid email address registered and confirmed in your user preferences and you have not been blocked from using it. If after discussing the matter with $1, or if you cannot contact $1, and you still believe your block is unfair, you may appeal the block by requesting that another administrator review your block. To do so, add
{{unblock|your reason here}}
to the bottom of your user talk page (which you can edit while blocked, unless it is protected) to request unblocking. Please be aware that abuse of this template will result in protection of that page.
--Darkwind
It's on two pages, one was changed, the other was not. I changed the second one.
KP
Sorry, I didn't know about the second one. With both fixed, is this a resolved issue?
WilyD
On 9/16/07, Wily D wilydoppelganger@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/16/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/16/07, RLS evendell@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/16/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
The blocking message still says the same thing it did.
Not to me, it doesn't:
Your block will expire $6. If you do not wish to wait for your block to expire, you may contact $1 (the blocking administrator) via email to resolve the problem that led to the block. You cannot use the 'email this user' feature unless you have a valid email address registered and confirmed in your user preferences and you have not been blocked from using it. If after discussing the matter with $1, or if you cannot contact $1, and you still believe your block is unfair, you may appeal the block by requesting that another administrator review your block. To do so, add
{{unblock|your reason here}}
to the bottom of your user talk page (which you can edit while blocked, unless it is protected) to request unblocking. Please be aware that abuse of this template will result in protection of that page.
--Darkwind
It's on two pages, one was changed, the other was not. I changed the second one.
KP
Sorry, I didn't know about the second one. With both fixed, is this a resolved issue?
WilyD
The fixing of these is a resolved issue, thank you.
But that admins feel free to ignore users they block is not a resolved issue for me.
And, yes, Guy, I know that most users who get blocked are the equivalent of what shows up on the new articles speedily deleted, or I assume that is the case, particularly after looking at a list of user names blocked by an admin.
That doesn't mean that admins should feel they have carte blanche to treat all users like shit when they're blocked.
KP
On 9/16/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/16/07, Wily D wilydoppelganger@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/16/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/16/07, RLS evendell@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/16/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
The blocking message still says the same thing it did.
Not to me, it doesn't:
Your block will expire $6. If you do not wish to wait for your block to expire, you may contact $1 (the blocking administrator) via email to resolve the problem that led to the block. You cannot use the 'email this user' feature unless you have a valid email address registered and confirmed in your user preferences and you have not been blocked from using it. If after discussing the matter with $1, or if you cannot contact $1, and you still believe your block is unfair, you may appeal the block by requesting that another administrator review your block. To do so, add
{{unblock|your reason here}}
to the bottom of your user talk page (which you can edit while blocked, unless it is protected) to request unblocking. Please be aware that abuse of this template will result in protection of that page.
--Darkwind
It's on two pages, one was changed, the other was not. I changed the second one.
KP
Sorry, I didn't know about the second one. With both fixed, is this a resolved issue?
WilyD
The fixing of these is a resolved issue, thank you.
But that admins feel free to ignore users they block is not a resolved issue for me.
And, yes, Guy, I know that most users who get blocked are the equivalent of what shows up on the new articles speedily deleted, or I assume that is the case, particularly after looking at a list of user names blocked by an admin.
That doesn't mean that admins should feel they have carte blanche to treat all users like shit when they're blocked.
KP
Well, the short answer is "depends on the user". This guy: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&pag... is not going to get a response from me if he requests an unblock, in all likelihood. Other users I've blocked might.
It's the same as article deletion - in principle, you're supposed to consult with the deleting admin before you run off to deletion review or something - that doesn't always happen. Fine, it's not a big deal - the outcome is what matters. There's no real reason to believe that admins with emails not enabled are ignoring users they've blocked - in all likelihood they've watchlisted their talk pages and so on.
I'm not sure admins generally feel they have any more entitlement to treat blocked users like shit than they feel they have entitlement to treat unblocked users like shit. I don't - I suppose I shouldn't speak for other admins.
Cheers WilyD
On 16/09/2007, Wily D wilydoppelganger@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not sure admins generally feel they have any more entitlement to treat blocked users like shit than they feel they have entitlement to treat unblocked users like shit. I don't - I suppose I shouldn't speak for other admins.
Cheers WilyD
Seen on the mailing list recently:
'We are not in control of how people ruin their own reputations by being assholes on Wikipedia. My sympathy for banned users is generally slight.'
I believe that speaks for itself?
On 16/09/2007, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
Blocks are NOT easily appealable when you have a hostile and petty blocking administrator and a policy that requires you to contact him first. And when you don't realize that you're not required to contact him first in spite of the blocking message which tells you that.
And, when you're a new contributor to Wikipedia and you get blocked and you don't know your way around, it is NOT CLEAR that the instructions are not meant to be followed.
And this gets tiresome being told that the instructions are not meant to be followed and everybody knows their way around them, as if I'm stupid for not realizing that the instructions don't mean what they say, and I shouldn't be following them but some other set of guidelines.
I am getting the idea ingrained into my head, though, from a couple of past conversations with administrators, that I AM a total idiot for trying to follow instructions on Wikipedia.
It's not an issue of just you, it's an issue of the system being set up in a way that is hostile to the average user. Instructions that shouldn't be followed. Experienced users dismissing the confusion of inexperienced users by saying, "oh blocks are easily appealable," when the inexerienced user points out they are not. If you already know everything, you probably don't even know what the instructions say. But if you don't already know everything, you can't possibly know that it's easy to do as long as you don't bother with the instructions.
It is very frustrating when Wikipedia is treated as a closed club of those who already know everything (blocks are easily appealed) excluding those who are just here to edit and don't know the easy way to do things that don't appear in the instructions.
The blocking message still says the same thing it did.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Blockedtext
KP
I've come to the conclusion recently, based on the plethora of conflicting, ambiguous, and ever-changing policy/guideline pages and the general state of them, and the various inane templates and messages used as editorial notices in article content, that Wikipedia is now controlled by the Vogons.
Except that with the Vogons, you can probably eventually find out the correct archaic sequence to follow for any procedure.
Zoney
Zoney,
Don't make me read you poetry. ;)
Navou
-----Original Message----- From: wikien-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Zoney Sent: Monday, September 17, 2007 6:33 AM To: English Wikipedia Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Block appeals--just don't follow the instructions? Huh?
On 16/09/2007, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
Blocks are NOT easily appealable when you have a hostile and petty blocking administrator and a policy that requires you to contact him first. And when you don't realize that you're not required to contact him first in spite of the blocking message which tells you that.
And, when you're a new contributor to Wikipedia and you get blocked and you don't know your way around, it is NOT CLEAR that the instructions are not meant to be followed.
And this gets tiresome being told that the instructions are not meant to be followed and everybody knows their way around them, as if I'm stupid for not realizing that the instructions don't mean what they say, and I shouldn't be following them but some other set of guidelines.
I am getting the idea ingrained into my head, though, from a couple of past conversations with administrators, that I AM a total idiot for trying to follow instructions on Wikipedia.
It's not an issue of just you, it's an issue of the system being set up in a way that is hostile to the average user. Instructions that shouldn't be followed. Experienced users dismissing the confusion of inexperienced users by saying, "oh blocks are easily appealable," when the inexerienced user points out they are not. If you already know everything, you probably don't even know what the instructions say. But if you don't already know everything, you can't possibly know that it's easy to do as long as you don't bother with the instructions.
It is very frustrating when Wikipedia is treated as a closed club of those who already know everything (blocks are easily appealed) excluding those who are just here to edit and don't know the easy way to do things that don't appear in the instructions.
The blocking message still says the same thing it did.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Blockedtext
KP
I've come to the conclusion recently, based on the plethora of conflicting, ambiguous, and ever-changing policy/guideline pages and the general state of them, and the various inane templates and messages used as editorial notices in article content, that Wikipedia is now controlled by the Vogons.
Except that with the Vogons, you can probably eventually find out the correct archaic sequence to follow for any procedure.
Zoney
On 9/17/07, Zoney zoney.ie@gmail.com wrote:
On 16/09/2007, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
Blocks are NOT easily appealable when you have a hostile and petty blocking administrator and a policy that requires you to contact him first. And when you don't realize that you're not required to contact him first in spite of the blocking message which tells you that.
And, when you're a new contributor to Wikipedia and you get blocked and you don't know your way around, it is NOT CLEAR that the instructions are not meant to be followed.
And this gets tiresome being told that the instructions are not meant to be followed and everybody knows their way around them, as if I'm stupid for not realizing that the instructions don't mean what they say, and I shouldn't be following them but some other set of guidelines.
I am getting the idea ingrained into my head, though, from a couple of past conversations with administrators, that I AM a total idiot for trying to follow instructions on Wikipedia.
It's not an issue of just you, it's an issue of the system being set up in a way that is hostile to the average user. Instructions that shouldn't be followed. Experienced users dismissing the confusion of inexperienced users by saying, "oh blocks are easily appealable," when the inexerienced user points out they are not. If you already know everything, you probably don't even know what the instructions say. But if you don't already know everything, you can't possibly know that it's easy to do as long as you don't bother with the instructions.
It is very frustrating when Wikipedia is treated as a closed club of those who already know everything (blocks are easily appealed) excluding those who are just here to edit and don't know the easy way to do things that don't appear in the instructions.
The blocking message still says the same thing it did.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Blockedtext
KP
I've come to the conclusion recently, based on the plethora of conflicting, ambiguous, and ever-changing policy/guideline pages and the general state of them, and the various inane templates and messages used as editorial notices in article content, that Wikipedia is now controlled by the Vogons.
Except that with the Vogons, you can probably eventually find out the correct archaic sequence to follow for any procedure.
Zoney
--
And with Vogons you can actually find the sequence for the procedure, whether or not you can follow it.
KP