Wikipedia talk:Admins willing to make difficult blocks

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Presto

If you wanted to get rid of an editor, man, this would be an awesome resource. Go straight to a list of people who have already identified themselves as being willing to make a "difficult" block, request that your chosen enemy be terminated for such and such pretext of a reason, and presto!

You all are looking at it the wrong way. Instead of gathering all the harshest admins together and organizing them, why not think about the whole concept behind the thing? Your average J. Q. Vandal has neither the will or intelligence to pursue any serious harassment. Who are these people that engage in harassment? I hypothesize that they are typically editors with strong POVs, who get involved in some shitstorm or another, let their tempers get the better of them...what's the best way to deal with these people? Is it really to go to the hardcore sysop brigade for prompt resolution? To me, this is another step in a slide towards blocking editors outside of process for flimsy reasons. People who make threats should have a hard time figuring out who to concentrate their threats on, because there should be a significant number of people involved in some reasonable process that ends in their blocking—and moreover, you give people a fair shot, talking calmly and sympathetically to them, you're probably pretty likely to avoid needing to block anyway, and harassment never becomes a serious issue. Everyking 04:56, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't see this as list of the "harshest admins". At least I don't see myself as particularly harsh. I signed myself up because when I saw the sad Gator1 case, I wished I had been the one making his blocks since it would have saved him all the mess it got him into, and I would have been practically immune to the same myself. Of course, Gator1 could have asked me (or anyone else) to block the trouble user if he suspected something like this would happen, but making such a request, ask for someone else to do their dirty work so to say, could be perceived as being rude and he really wouldn't know who it was ok to ask. With a list like this he'd know. I would gladly have made that obvious block for him, and I wouldn't lose any sleep (or my day time job) because of it. Shanes 06:05, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
I concur with Shanes comments on this matter. I can see Everyking's point about out of process blocks...in all liklihood though, if the situation is such that a "tough" admin is requested by another admin, then adequate links to support the rationale should be all that is necessary. In the case of a nonadmin making the request, I think the page should ask them instead to report the situation to AN/I, AN or 3RR depending on the situation. This would help ensure out of process blocks would not happen I would hope. I personally have little belief that if an admin were to contact another admin listed here, that there would be much reason to believe that the blocked editor had any reason to edit this site. We don't have to tolerate any harassment here or outside of Wikipedia as a byproduct of our good intentions to protect the project and it's editors.--MONGO 06:26, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Obligatory worry that distracts all attention unnecessarily

First, let me say that I agree with a power structure that can block from on high, especially regarding folks who do the absurd and try to affect real life identities. Second, let me say that I endorse and support everyone who has created and signed up for this page. That said, my first thought was, "Let's rename it Wikipedia Star Chamber." Please do not misconstrue what I am about to say as any indication that I don't agree with the brave and noble folks involved in this.

  1. The real life stalking and harassment we have seen is effective exactly to the degree that our real world employers and associates are fearful and uncomprehending, and, until our own real world employers and associates understand the Internet and the rule that one in a hundred users is crazy and one out of a hundred of them is dangerously crazy, we're all susceptible. Unless we are retired, we're susceptible in the future for what we do now, so the young admins need to know that.
  2. The stalking and harassment cases are sometimes dangerous to employment, and we probably need an indemnification or general form letter of support from the WikiMedia Foundation that can be sent to attest nobility and worth that can be mailed in any such case, if desired.
  3. Employment issues are going to be rare, although quite serious, but the threats of physical violence, sexual harassment, and harassing e-mail (real harassment, not whining...just ask some of the female Wikipedians who have experienced it), "outing," and other forms of psychological and physical assault are another level and possibly as common. (Once they cross the line from "crank" to "dangerous crank," there's no telling whether they'll go all the way to "criminal" or stop at "aggravating.") While having brave admins willing to risk contact (folks administering their own domain are in a good position, as they can blacklist without asking and change e-mail account on a dime) is great, such cases as these require a truly anonymous and truly impenetrable identity.
  4. Some of these things (#3, e.g.) require fast response, as in "within 24 hours." We have had a Wikipedia admin who had his opponents show up in his dormitory room and threaten physical violence, for example. He was able to have the police arrest them, but he had to do that because they had found him and lived in the same city. It's a crap shoot whether your harasser lives in your city or not. If you live in NYC or London, there's not a bad chance that they do. If you live in Surprise, Arizona, there's a good chance they have to travel too far to bother you.
  5. Therefore, I recommend, in all seriousness, a Wikipedia:Emergency injunction that is straight to ArbCom and, most specifically, the Foundation and/or Jimbo. Since we have these clerks hanging around, let's give them something to do and let them act as triage, but only if turnaround is less than 24 hours. If there is an emergency injunction necessary, we should have a set of automatic responses, really, possibly including
    1. Letter of support
    2. Contacting the abusive ISP
    3. Contacting jurisdictional law enforcement
    4. Creating a block from an impersonal Foundation identity
    • These would be reactive, I realize, and wouldn't stop the first contact, but they would offer quick and monolithic support. There is probably no way to stop the first contact, the first threat, the first approach, while remaining Wikipedia.

Anyway, these are the ideas that occur to me, and, again, please, please do not let this get folks to think that I am not supportive nor to get us off topic and off track. Geogre 11:56, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

(Oh, and I can't tell you why I haven't signed up, as telling anyone why would give out a weak spot for Those People to try to exploit.) Geogre 12:10, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

As usual, excellent ideas from Geogre. I support them all, except for the renaming to Star Chamber... the zomgcabal-ists would have a field day. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 13:34, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
I propose we call ourselves The Pentaveret. (note, I'm kidding... I share Katefan0's concern) --Syrthiss 13:43, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Privacy

Shouldn't we add some tips on how to protect your privacy? You never know which apparently minor block may turn into a dedicated enemy.

sample tip: Consider carefully how much personal information you have on you user page. If you posted personal information in the past, you may want to consider selectively deleting revisions from its history. NoSeptember talk 12:29, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

That would be a different page (Wikipedia:Privacy tips?), since the focus is different from this one. --cesarb 13:42, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Myself, as long as I use my real name it doesn't matter how much personal information I reveal. There are no other Samuel Blannings on the planet as far as I know, so there's nothing on my userpage that couldn't be found out fairly easily on Google anyway. I can either choose to be anonymous or not, and so far I prefer not. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:46, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with being public about who you are, but those who don't want to be known publicly should be reminded of how to protect their private information. The time to do it is before someone starts digging into your history. NoSeptember talk 18:49, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I don't get this

I don't see how a dangerous cases for an Admin would be different for another? This issue is about privacy, if some sick POV pusher will go on threatning an Admin, that this Admin is ready to take the risk won't change anything. I think there is a lot better solution, problematic cases could be blocked by an anonymous admin. If a cases becomes out of control and someone start making threats, the admins involved in administring the article in question could request in a private mailing list only accessible to Admins the article to be administred by an anonymous admin, from the maining list a number of Admin(excluding the one that place the request) volonteer to run an anonymous administrator account. Those accounts could be called something like admin001, admin002 etc. and their passwords reset after each uses. If there is an abuses by one of the anonymous admins, or a precieved abuse, a user can always report let say admin002 and the edits. Fad (ix) 03:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

The Ghost Admin idea is one I toyed with before I wrote what I did, above. There is a problem with having a Ghost Admin as a first responder, though: it's pretty contrary to Wikipedia. Basically, anyone getting molested short of a ban already has solutions in having others take a look. We're trying to find out what to do when the block/ban itself results in the harassment. The best I can come up with is a WikiMedia account (so it's not anonymous but rather official), and that would need process to ensure that it was not abused, and that's why I suggested an emergency injunction system: there would be a system in place and yet the result would be an official action, and a set of actions that would be uniform enough to take the legs out of any "favoritism" and "POV clique" argument. Geogre 04:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
I do agree with you, but unless I have not understood exactly what you meant, 3/4 of the points you proposed are rather acting after something like this happen rather than prevention. I think the best bet would be to concentrate more on preventing things like this to happen than placing all or most the ressources on the 'acting after the event.' Fad (ix) 20:19, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bobblewik at it again

I'm not an admin, and I think the block I'm requesting here is "difficult" for other reasons than the ones mentioned on this project page thus far.

Nonetheless if this would lead to a block it would be a "difficult block". The issue below has also been reported on:

The issue: see User talk:Bobblewik#Date delinking --Francis Schonken 12:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Poor Bhadani

I made a mistake - I would have been more useful to wikipedia had I maintained my annonymity. I have even received malicious e-mails and have been threatened with physical stalking. Poor Bhadani! Still, I shall continue to defend the Project. --Bhadani 15:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reorder the list?

Could:

  1. The entries in the list be restructured so that the admin's name always appears as the first item on the line, followed by their comments, if any?
  2. The list then be sorted alphabetically by the admin's name?

These two changes would make it much easier for folks to spot the names of admins they would like to contact to perform a difficult block.

Atlant 14:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I could prolly play with it if I get some free time with AWB, and provide a link to an alphabetized version. Syrthiss 14:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Example

Theres a clear and well known example of this at: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive90#User:Gator1

I was going to add a short note to the page, to provide this as an example so people could understand what the issue might be. But then decided to consult, due to R/L issues and beans which it might impact.

What do people think? FT2 (Talk | email) 01:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Essjay

Might as well be open about the fact I removed Essjay from the list. Seems simple and straightforward enough, because he can nolonger block anybody. But because I know people could be touchy about this I thought I might as well mention my edit on the talk page, so the can discuss it if they want. But hopefully there should obviously be nothing to discuss. Mathmo Talk 10:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely. Thank you for doing so. Flcelloguy (A note?) 03:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/d/m/Wikipedia_talk%7EAdmins_willing_to_make_difficult_blocks_32c7.html"