FORUM WARNING [2] Division by zero (Line: 2933 of /srcsgcaop/boardclass.php)
-
     
 
The Wikipedia Review: A forum for discussion and criticism of Wikipedia
Wikipedia Review Op-Ed Pages

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

> General Discussion? What's that all about?

This subforum is for general discussion of Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects. For a glossary of terms frequently used in such discussions, please refer to Wikipedia:Glossary. For a glossary of musical terms, see here. Other useful links:

Akahele.orgWikipedia-WatchWikitruthWP:ANWikiEN-L/Foundation-L (mailing lists) • Citizendium forums

> 
mbz1
post
Post #1


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 461
Joined:
Member No.: 25,791



http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=482944579

QUOTE
How to figure out improvements in process that lower the number of inappropriate blocks, and increase the number of appropriate blocks, is tricky business!--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] ([[User talk:Jimbo Wales#top|talk]]) 18:39, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


Well, I am not going to discuss how to increase " the number of appropriate blocks", but lowering the number of inappropriate blocks is very easy.

Of course an admin could impose an inappropriate block by mistake, and it could be understood, but there are some situation, in which "mistakes" could be easily avoided, and that's why should not be forgiven.

1. An admin misuses its tools while involved broadly construed

2. An admin blocks a well established editor with an idiotic edit summary as for example "vandalism only account".

3. An admin misuses the tools to bully kids.

In the above situations, a first misuse of the tools should warrant a firm warning, and a second should result in desysoping.

Another way to lower " the number of inappropriate blocks" is to make sure that each and every block rationale is supported by at least one difference, and the more complex the situation is the more differences should be presented.

Another way to lower " the number of inappropriate blocks" is to make sure that during mob lynching on AN/I only uninvolved users are allowed to comment about the block.


Another way to lower " the number of inappropriate blocks" is to allow an editor in question to freely participate in all discussions concerning his/her block.

Another way to lower " the number of inappropriate blocks" is to stop closed tribunals by your arbcom, at least in the cases, where no private info of a third party is involved. Then the members of arbcom and you, Jimbo, would not be afraid that your private communications will get leaked some time some where.

Another way to lower " the number of inappropriate blocks" is strictly follow your own blocking policy: blocks should not be punitive!

I assure you, Jimbo, that these absolutely valid and fair measure that are really easy to implement will drastically lower the numbers of inappropriate blocks.

Just remember, Jimbo, if you care of course, it is much easier to replace a bully, power-hungry admin, and each and every sicko from you arbcom than a valued contributor.

This post has been edited by mbz1:
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Replies
Web Fred
post
Post #2


Pervert & Swinger
*****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 739
Joined:
From: Manchester, UK
Member No.: 17,141



Demolishing that fucking stupid civility pillar would drastically reduce the number of stupid blocks to otherwise productive editors. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/censored.gif)
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Posts in this topic


Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

-   Lo-Fi Version Time is now:
 
     
FORUM WARNING [2] Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home2/wikipede/public_html/int042kj398.php:242) (Line: 0 of Unknown)