Misplaced Pages

:Miscellany for deletion/Misplaced Pages:Admins willing to make difficult blocks: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 05:18, 11 April 2008 editLar (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators29,171 edits →Misplaced Pages:Admins willing to make difficult blocks: keep← Previous edit Revision as of 05:22, 11 April 2008 edit undoBfigura (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers14,776 edits →Misplaced Pages:Admins willing to make difficult blocks: just in caseNext edit →
Line 16: Line 16:
::*See ]. Cheers, --] <sup>(])</sup> 04:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC) ::*See ]. Cheers, --] <sup>(])</sup> 04:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
:::*Ooooh! Can I nominate that for deletion? <small>] &#x007C; ] &#x007C; ]</small> 04:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC) :::*Ooooh! Can I nominate that for deletion? <small>] &#x007C; ] &#x007C; ]</small> 04:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
::::*]. --] <sup>(])</sup> 04:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC) ::::*]. --] <sup>(])</sup> 04:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC) ←<small>please note the link ] <sup>(])</sup> 05:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC) </small>
::::*Please do, it should have been deleted yesterday. nonadmin willing to make hard edits? Booooo! All editors make hard edits everyday. ] (]) 05:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC) ::::*Please do, it should have been deleted yesterday. nonadmin willing to make hard edits? Booooo! All editors make hard edits everyday. ] (]) 05:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
:::::* Someone besides me!!! <small>] &#x007C; ] &#x007C; ]</small> 05:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC) :::::* Someone besides me!!! <small>] &#x007C; ] &#x007C; ]</small> 05:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 05:22, 11 April 2008

Misplaced Pages:Admins willing to make difficult blocks

I think this page only serves to encourage the mentality that Misplaced Pages is under siege by evil trolls, etc. There's no visible useful effect of this page (has anyone actually been contacted as a result of it?) and really if you want someone to be blocked you shouldn't be contacting admins privately, you should be posting it on ANI or the like for transparency and to allow the community to have input. If you feel genuinely threatened by somebody then by all means contact the Foundation via OTRS or even better, contact real world authorities. This page vastly over exagerrates the kinds of harassment that have occured (I think maybe two people, in total, in the history of Misplaced Pages have been stalked IRL?) What even is a 'difficult block'? A block of someone who might begin harassing the admin IRL? By all means it should then be done by an anonymous admin if necessary, but I don't think a list of such admins is required to accomplish that as ANI threads and the like are viewable by all. If indeed people might get dangerous in real life, we should be contacting the police, not playing Wiki-Rambo. -- Naerii 04:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete I think that if someone is (for example, if I was an admin, and I was…) not willing to make a "difficult block", then it would be between myself and my computer. Conversely, those who are willing should probably not flaunt it to unwelcome eyes. —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  04:22 11 April, 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Biased and POV. It only applies to admins not regular users. Aslo all blocks need to be done by consensus like any other editing at the project. Besides being BITE, I see no usefulnes in this category. Igor Berger (talk) 04:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep: As an admin who has been stalked before and received death threats and physical hate mail for my actions on Misplaced Pages, this category is both useful and absolutely necessary. First of all, I don't see any valid grounds for deletion, since the nominators statement that admins haven't been stalked before is blatantly false. As for AN/I, we all know that AN/I is not appropriate for every post; that does not mean that this category is useless. OTRS does not block users, so contacting OTRS is not valid alternative. WP:BITE? What does this have to do with newbies? And how does the fact that it is an admin category mean that it biased? We have plenty of categories for admins. Jesus christ, I wish people would actually do some research about what they are nominating or voting for deletion on, before they actually do so; non-admins discussing an admin category doubly so. ⇒SWATJester 04:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
    I am sorry you have been stalked, and it should not happen to any Misplaced Pages user admin or nonadmin. I would like to ask you to strike this out non-admins discussing an admin category doubly soIt is offensive to nonadmin users. Igor Berger (talk) 04:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. This page lists admins that either have revealed no personal information about themselves or otherwise do not have concerns about blocked users using said information to attempt to bring harm to them. This does happen and has happened in the recent past. Thus, a list of such admins is necessary. —Scott5114↗ 04:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Bewildering, distasteful and redundant. --The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 04:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. No disrespect intended to the nom, but I think the deletion proposal misrepresents the list. Admins tend to become targets for abuse when they deal with the more aggressive vandals, sockpuppeteers, and the like. This list isn't about secrecy, or attempts to hide disciplinary actions; it is merely a list of admins who are prepared to step in when an administrator feels they have gone as far as they feel comfortable in doing. (As for "overstating", I can easily list at least a half-dozen editors - myself included - who are currently being aggressively attacked for admin or admin-type actions.) --Ckatzspy 04:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't think I'm misrepresenting it; the list doesn't even mention cyberstalking: "This page has been created in response to the increasing numbers of admins who are being threatened and harassed off-site or in real life because of admin actions they have taken on Misplaced Pages." -- Naerii 04:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • No desrespect to admins, but this category descrption should be reviced to include regular ediotrs beeing stalked off-wiki as well. I can give you an example of a regular editor who has been stalked off-wiki. So if the category descrption can be amended I would change my vote to keep. Igor Berger (talk) 04:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep: I find it ironic that a non admin has nominated the page and it appears that only non admins support its deletion. Honestly, only an administrator can really understand the benefit of such a thing. This is a very useful page to have, for all of the reasons pointed out above. Some admins are worried about stalking and other harassment and they have legitimate reason to be. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, maybe rename to something less subject to misinterpretation. WP:Admins with Thick Skins perhaps? Although that would defeat the symmetry with other similarly named lists --Bfigura 04:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Useful and protects real life identities. Blocked individuals can seek the same redress for unblock, regardless of who clicks the button. But all admins can't equally protect themselves in real life. This would especially be true for admins who are legally minors, have families, or may be physically unable to protect themselves. MBisanz 04:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong keep: I'll echo Swatjester's comments here. I do not see any valid reasons for deletion, and the nominator's statement that there have only been two cases of stalking shows blatant disregard for accepting the truth. I've been stalked, so has Swatjester and several other administrators, and some of which has been made public at places like ANI -- usually when they leave the project for good. This nomination is only pitting administrators against regular users, and that is so far how the votes have been divided. seicer | talk | contribs 04:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • It's a yes or no question, but if you don't want to respond that's fair enough. Forgive me if I take such claims with a pinch of salt, however. -- Naerii 04:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - "Difficult" blocks are decided via public discussions, so there's always someone around who's willing to perform the block. We don't need a list like this to refer to. Besides which I think it defeats the purpose -- this could be like a "most wanted list" for people who wish to harass admins in real life. And really, Misplaced Pages doesn't need militant groups like this. This page views Misplaced Pages as some kind of battleground. Totally unnecessary. Equazcion •✗/C • 04:44, 11 Apr 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. I don't understand what's so "difficult" about blocking editors who wish harm on the project and its editors. Any admin should be willing to block such editors, or he/she shouldn't be an admin in the first place; moreover, any users--non-administrators included--are subject to retaliation and harassment by stalkers; blocking these troublemakers is hardly the sole or primary route to upsetting them. This page smacks of smarmy self-congratulation for doing what any decent person would be inclined to do.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 04:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Some admins who have disclosed their identities have spouses and children. It could be be argued that it would be downright irresponsible for those admins to be willing to endanger their families by performing one of these difficult blocks themselves. This a mere resource for such admins, nothing more or less. —Scott5114↗ 04:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • If there is genuine danger involved in making a particular action, then nobody should be doing it, no matter how well protected they think their identities are. Such things should be handled by the police. -- Naerii 04:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
So we can let vandals and POV-pushers roam free if there's a chance they'll go after whoever blocks them? No, they need to be blocked either way, and this list allows for that. —Scott5114↗ 05:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Some of you seem to be equating the act of hitting the block to some sort of suicidal "come get me" taunt. Getting on the wrong end of a POV edit war or outing an editor as a sockpuppet is far more likely to inflame these nutjobs than merely applying an inevitable block. The imagined martyrdom of such an act is really quite silly. Any respectable editor would stand up for the project against such people.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 05:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Agree with Naerii, once a real threat has been made. However, I think the utility of this list is that it is meant to be used when one merely suspects that an action might lead to unrational response. (Just my $0.02). --Bfigura 05:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
What? By that measure anyone that ends up blocked, ever, has a risk of harassing admins. So this list should really be "List of admins willing to make blocks", no? -- Naerii 05:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
No. There's a difference between most simple vandals which anyone can block and those users that need to be blocked that may be dangerous. Fortunately, the second sort is nowhere near as common, but unfortunately, the number is non-zero as well. —Scott5114↗ 05:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - All admins should be willing to make difficult blocks. What is this, "I'm only gonna be an admin for the easy stuff"? That's a whole issue in and of itself, and I would have thought that despite my opposition to this page, I would be questioning the merit of any admin who was not willing to do so. There's no value here, it's just as easily interpreted as "Admins who will stand in the face of anything, however valid, to defend a block", "Admins who are proud of the power they wield", all manner of things. This adds nothing of use to anyone, except perhaps some egos. As for the comment above, "only an admin could understand"? Huh? Misplaced Pages is not the first, nor the only site where people may gain experience with making difficult decisions. Let's not pedestal-push that there is some amazing, unique experience that you couldn't understand unless you've done it. Achromatic (talk) 04:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Last I checked, I'm a volunteer here, so I choose which actions I take. And if that means not doing blocks that may have real life consequences for me and my family, that's what it's going to be. -- Flyguy649 04:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's sad that this is needed, but that's reality, per the above keep comments. -- Flyguy649 04:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, unfortunately it is needed, and I have seen it used. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - It should be noted that there's evidence that some non-admins are cyberstalked as well. I am reportedly being cyberstalked for being an abusive admin, lack of tools notwithstanding (I will not include a link to the website as it contains personal attacks against multiple Misplaced Pages editors). I note Geogre's proposal on the talk page of the page proposed for deletion, and he probably has a few good points. As to this page, I am concerned that it provides a false sense of security to people. Those who have put their names on the list, however, have done so voluntarily so they are making their own decision here. It looks like it needs to be cleaned up, though; suggest that any admin on the list who has stepped down or has not edited in 3 months be removed or (for the latter group) asked to reconfirm. Risker (talk) 05:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Some of our banned users make the average vandal look like the pope. Its sad that it is needed, but unfortunately it is. Mr.Z-man 05:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • obvious keep. I think the deletes are all confused about what this page is all about. ++Lar: t/c 05:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)