[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       wikien-l
Subject:    [WikiEN-l] Frequency and validity of blocks (was Re: Ban Appeals Subcommittee transparency and WP:EX
From:       Filipus Klutiero <chealer () gmail ! com>
Date:       2015-08-12 3:49:40
Message-ID: 55CAC254.5060200 () gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

Hi Nathan,

On 2015-08-03 09:07, Nathan wrote:
> Filipus,
> 
> You failed to link to your account or your block log. You may not realize
> that most editors of the English Wikipedia edit quietly for many years
> without even a single block, so accruing 5 blocks in any period of time is
> extraordinary.

My account is not particularly hard to guess. I did not attempt linking to my block \
log, but if someone failed to find it, it can be seen at \
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=Chealer \
&year=&month=-1&tagfilter=&hide_patrol_log=1&hide_tag_log=1&hide_review_log=1&hide_thanks_log=1


I have myself contributed to another subproject without a single block for what could \
be considered many years, but I still find your perception a little naive although I \
do not know of statistics on the topic. The only Wikipedia I may have contributed to \
quietly for that long is the French Wikipedia, and that's certainly related to the \
fact that my only significant contribution there has been to fix articles or flag \
their issues as I read them. Try doing some serious article maintenance, and I can't \
imagine you would qualify edition as "quiet"... unless you maintain articles on \
decorative flowers, in which case you might want to try maintaining Wikipedia for a \
while and see if your opinion remains unchanged (in which case you could try \
Criticism of Wikipedia :-P ).

Obviously, the number of times one is blocked depends on how much one contributes, \
among other factors, and I contributed more than most editors. This offender is \
certainly not a reference, but even though he joined the project after me and enjoyed \
administrator status for most of his presence, he accrued as many blocks (but at \
least one of them was also in error).

This situation is not Wikipedia-specific; I have personally been blocked on \
Wiktionary, even though I didn't contribute 100 edits there (again in error).


That being said, if you realize the situation the hard way, you may also realize \
blocks tend to come by... blocks. My average time between blocks is over 2 years, yet \
my median time between blocks is under 20 days (JzG's log shows a similar pattern).

> I'm sure I won't be alone in remaining skeptical of your
> tale without convincing evidence that somehow all the blocks were in error.
> 

I'm not sure what you mean, but I did not claim that all the blocks were in error. I \
claimed the first 3 blocks were in error, but the reasons (if they exist) for the \
last 2 remain unavailable, so I cannot tell whether those are in error. (Of course, \
they *are* also errors in the sense that a policy violation is necessarily an error, \
but they are not necessarily errors in the sense that the responsible users would \
have refrained from blocking had they realized that they were committing factual \
errors).



I have not seen discussions about block usage and misusage, and find the topic \
interesting, so you're welcome to discuss it, but I'd like to be clear on the [main] \
purpose of my message, which was to discuss block reviews. (Granted, a high rate of \
inappropriate appeal declines would be less concerning if there were fewer \
inappropriate blocks in the first place, so both processes equally need fixing for \
proper ACL management.)

-- 
Filipus Klutiero
http://www.philippecloutier.com


_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]