Sunday, June 15, 2008

Haphazard Theory Construction

There is now a new blocking notice up on the English Wikipedia for this writer. It looks like this:

You are currently unable to edit pages on Wikipedia.

You can still read pages, but cannot edit, change, or create them.

Editing from Moulton (your account, IP address, or IP address range) has been disabled by Blueboy96 for the following reason(s):

Personal attacks, outing other editors. Sorry, you're done here

This block has been set to expire: indefinite.

Even if blocked, you will usually still be able to edit your user talk page and contact other editors and administrators by email.

Note: If you have JavaScript enabled, please use the [show] links across from each header to show more information.

I have no idea who Blueboy96 is on the English Wikipedia. But there is now a new discussion about this latest block taking place on the Administrators' Noticeboard. The admins can't seem to decide what theory to apply to explain what happened here. One admin did send me E-Mail asking me to explain, which I did. I wonder why so many other admins prefer to form haphazard and erratic theories and act on them as if they were the ground truth?


Alison Cassidy said...

I just did this.

Moulton said...

That's definitely more accurate than the erroneous message Blueboy96 put up.

But I still have a question.

According to the talk page discussion about the {{indefblockeduser}} template, it should go on the user's talk page rather than the main user page if there is a discussion about the block on the talk page.

And there is such a discussion at the bottom of my talk page.

So it seems to me that if the admins wish to model adherence to policy, it would behoove them to put the correct template on the correct page, per the published policy of the Enlgish Wikipedia.

Otherwise, it gives the impression that the way things are done are somewhat arbitrary, erratic, and capricious.

Moulton said...

Today, I posted this on the Meta-Wiki talk page of Blueboy96:

No Convictions Without Giving the Opportunity to Present a Defense

On June 29th, Jimbo Wales said this:

"I have encouraged the ArbCom to move slowly and thoughtfully. Gather all the facts. Don't have a public argument with each other that confuses people or gives trolls the opportunity to turn more people against each other. Figure out what went wrong, correct it, apologize where beneficial to do so, and build a better framework going forward. You don't get all that done in a weekend, and you don't further that kind of thoughtful and mature process with a hasty statement. I think the important statement has been made: no secret trials, and no convictions without giving the opportunity to present a defense. That's just basic justice, and I will overturn any ArbCom decision to the contrary. (Although, I should point out, there is ZERO chance of the ArbCom doing this in the first place.)" --Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

In view of the above principle, do you wish to stand down from this act pending the presentation of a defense from me in the context of this discussion?

Moulton 14:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)