Options

[mbz1]

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

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: Wed 21st March 2012, 5:26pm

[Web Fred]

Demolishing that fucking stupid civility pillar would drastically reduce the number of stupid blocks to otherwise productive editors.

[Malleus]

Demolishing that fucking stupid civility pillar would drastically reduce the number of stupid blocks to otherwise productive editors.

Hear, hear!

[Fusion]

Demolishing that fucking stupid civility pillar would drastically reduce the number of stupid blocks to otherwise productive editors.

Hear, hear!

But would that not mean that occasionally admins might be rude? That of course never happens now because such an admin would get sacked.

Unless it is either Yakov Smirnoff (T-H-L-K-D) or overused memes, Russian humor really doesn't strike the American funny bone, y'know.

Americans are clearly lucky to know nothing of such social conditions.

[Tarc]

Unless it is either Yakov Smirnoff (T-H-L-K-D) or overused memes, Russian humor really doesn't strike the American funny bone, y'know.

Americans are clearly lucky to know nothing of such social conditions.

I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you over the sound of my SUV that I drive down to the mailbox.

BTW, this was never about Mbz's "right to vanish", it was always just the old "martyr for a cause" shtick. The new account now waves the J'accuse flag in tribute.

This post has been edited by Tarc: Sun 25th March 2012, 1:17pm

[Alex D]

I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you over the sound of my SUV that I drive down to the mailbox.

Thank you for this blinder of a line which allowed me today to mock (albeit gently) American friends who suggested driving less than 200 metres down the road to the café.