Essays Low‑impact | ||||||||||
|
once you HAVE a block log, then ALL issues are "major". IJS. — Ched : ? 21:19, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Is an experienced editor in the habit of demanding an apology or a grovel as an unblock condition? If there is a pattern of such demands, the problem should be addressed by telling the demander that they are out of line and unhelpful. ANI should have a culture where such is apparent, and although I haven't followed every drama thread, I thought it was pretty free of such demands.
For an unblock, a user has to show that they understand what the problem was, and give a good indication that they are going to avoid repeating a similar problem. The user does not have to agree that the block was "right" and they were "wrong"—they just have to agree that there are certain procedures, and editors will be blocked if enough disruption occurs.
Unblocks might be cheap for the problem user. However, they can spit in the face of the good editors who have lost large amounts of time dealing with the problem. In that sense, unblocks can be very expensive. Johnuniq ( talk) 02:56, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm not trying to be obnoxious, but a more complete title for this essay might be: "Unblocks are cheap for people who hang out at AN/I proposing unblocks." For people who edit in the trenches, unblocks are often not cheap at all. It's incredibly difficult to deal with even the most blatant agenda-driven editing or misuse of sources on this site. Inevitably, when these sorts of disruptive editors are blocked, someone proposes unblocking them using some variation of "unblocks are cheap".
The problem is that someone actually has to deal with the disruptive editor after the unblock. It's sort of disrespectful to the people who are actually impacted by the unblock to dismiss the subject with: "well, if they misbehave again, they'll be blocked again." Maybe. But in the meantime, they'll do more damage, drain more patience and goodwill, and contribute to the burnout of the ever-dwindling number of clueful editors here. Besides which, there's no guarantee that they will be re-blocked if they misbehave; that's actually very dependent on the luck of the draw in terms of attracting administrative attention. Trust me - I've been on both the editorial and the administrative side of such situations.
In one case, an editor with a long-term, well-documented history of tendentious and agenda-driven editing on a particular hot-button issue (abortion) continually dodged long-term sanction because, every time they were proposed, the ultimate decision was along the lines of "unblocks are cheap" and "if he keeps it up he'll be re-blocked". After a period of years - years - of inappropriate editing on the topic, he was topic-banned by ArbCom. But during that time he did a lot of damage to the community of editors who work on that topic, and directly drove off at least two very talented, clueful, thoughtful voices of reason in the subject area. Those clueful editors he drove off haven't been replaced - they're just gone, and it's that much harder to make any progress at covering abortion-related topics in a serious, neutral, encyclopedic way in their absence. That's not cheap. MastCell Talk 16:54, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
The context of the essay is a couple Wikipedians I respect expressed dissatisfaction with the tone of rope, in that rope seems to imply we want the unblocked editor to misbehave after unblocking. It is not intended as "get out of jail free" card or saying that anytime someone suggests unblocking it should be done; the phrasing "When there is genuine disagreement" is meant to convey this. I understand there are significant issues out in the context space and I don't think this essay is significant to those issues one way or the other. There are two major problems I'm aware of:
I'm not thrilled with "unblocks are cheap" either, but I honestly couldn't come up with anything better. It's in the WP space so I don't own it; if there's any way(s) to improve the wording or move it to a better title, please do so. Obviously it would'nt be appropripiate to change the major theme, but writing a counter essay and linking this one to it would certainly be appropriate. NE Ent 22:52, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Yea, things aren't defined until observed, not sure why MastCell thinks differently? The cat ain't dead, and it ain't alive. NE Ent 22:56, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
I think block length needs to be addressed more than unblocking. It can be a pain in the rear to get a long enough block, and sometimes (esp. on ANI) everyone will go straight to the indef site ban, rather than 6 mos or 3 years or something arbitrary. Are humans not allowed to mature IRL? d.g. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 02:33, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Essays Low‑impact | ||||||||||
|
once you HAVE a block log, then ALL issues are "major". IJS. — Ched : ? 21:19, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Is an experienced editor in the habit of demanding an apology or a grovel as an unblock condition? If there is a pattern of such demands, the problem should be addressed by telling the demander that they are out of line and unhelpful. ANI should have a culture where such is apparent, and although I haven't followed every drama thread, I thought it was pretty free of such demands.
For an unblock, a user has to show that they understand what the problem was, and give a good indication that they are going to avoid repeating a similar problem. The user does not have to agree that the block was "right" and they were "wrong"—they just have to agree that there are certain procedures, and editors will be blocked if enough disruption occurs.
Unblocks might be cheap for the problem user. However, they can spit in the face of the good editors who have lost large amounts of time dealing with the problem. In that sense, unblocks can be very expensive. Johnuniq ( talk) 02:56, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm not trying to be obnoxious, but a more complete title for this essay might be: "Unblocks are cheap for people who hang out at AN/I proposing unblocks." For people who edit in the trenches, unblocks are often not cheap at all. It's incredibly difficult to deal with even the most blatant agenda-driven editing or misuse of sources on this site. Inevitably, when these sorts of disruptive editors are blocked, someone proposes unblocking them using some variation of "unblocks are cheap".
The problem is that someone actually has to deal with the disruptive editor after the unblock. It's sort of disrespectful to the people who are actually impacted by the unblock to dismiss the subject with: "well, if they misbehave again, they'll be blocked again." Maybe. But in the meantime, they'll do more damage, drain more patience and goodwill, and contribute to the burnout of the ever-dwindling number of clueful editors here. Besides which, there's no guarantee that they will be re-blocked if they misbehave; that's actually very dependent on the luck of the draw in terms of attracting administrative attention. Trust me - I've been on both the editorial and the administrative side of such situations.
In one case, an editor with a long-term, well-documented history of tendentious and agenda-driven editing on a particular hot-button issue (abortion) continually dodged long-term sanction because, every time they were proposed, the ultimate decision was along the lines of "unblocks are cheap" and "if he keeps it up he'll be re-blocked". After a period of years - years - of inappropriate editing on the topic, he was topic-banned by ArbCom. But during that time he did a lot of damage to the community of editors who work on that topic, and directly drove off at least two very talented, clueful, thoughtful voices of reason in the subject area. Those clueful editors he drove off haven't been replaced - they're just gone, and it's that much harder to make any progress at covering abortion-related topics in a serious, neutral, encyclopedic way in their absence. That's not cheap. MastCell Talk 16:54, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
The context of the essay is a couple Wikipedians I respect expressed dissatisfaction with the tone of rope, in that rope seems to imply we want the unblocked editor to misbehave after unblocking. It is not intended as "get out of jail free" card or saying that anytime someone suggests unblocking it should be done; the phrasing "When there is genuine disagreement" is meant to convey this. I understand there are significant issues out in the context space and I don't think this essay is significant to those issues one way or the other. There are two major problems I'm aware of:
I'm not thrilled with "unblocks are cheap" either, but I honestly couldn't come up with anything better. It's in the WP space so I don't own it; if there's any way(s) to improve the wording or move it to a better title, please do so. Obviously it would'nt be appropripiate to change the major theme, but writing a counter essay and linking this one to it would certainly be appropriate. NE Ent 22:52, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Yea, things aren't defined until observed, not sure why MastCell thinks differently? The cat ain't dead, and it ain't alive. NE Ent 22:56, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
I think block length needs to be addressed more than unblocking. It can be a pain in the rear to get a long enough block, and sometimes (esp. on ANI) everyone will go straight to the indef site ban, rather than 6 mos or 3 years or something arbitrary. Are humans not allowed to mature IRL? d.g. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 02:33, 27 May 2017 (UTC)