Misplaced Pages

talk:Account suspensions: 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.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 02:18, 23 June 2005 editGuettarda (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators63,420 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit Revision as of 02:19, 23 June 2005 edit undoJYolkowski (talk | contribs)13,565 edits cmNext edit →
Line 11: Line 11:


::::Ok, maybe I misread this - I thought it would be a place to discuss potentially controvertial decisions ''before'' they were implemented. Am I mistaken? Regardless, transparency is good - better than discussing these things by email or irc. ] 02:18, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::::Ok, maybe I misread this - I thought it would be a place to discuss potentially controvertial decisions ''before'' they were implemented. Am I mistaken? Regardless, transparency is good - better than discussing these things by email or irc. ] 02:18, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:::::What's the problem with using ] for this, like admins already do? This seems like unnecessary duplication with the added disadvantage that the page is protected. ] // ] 02:19, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Revision as of 02:19, 23 June 2005

What, just "policies"? We don't have to specify which ones? Isn't that a little on the convenient side?

No wait. What I meant to say was: this page is redundant with Special:Log/Block and/or Special:Ipblocklist. Isn't it?

No wait with feeling. What is the purpose of this page, actually? It doesn't say. I suppose it's not to reinforce the clique of adminship by encouraging them to "me, too" the decisions made, and/or delineate the subcliques by encourage "me neither" responses? Because whatever it's supposed to do, I do believe that's what it's going to end up like, sure as WP:AN/I is doing it now. JRM · Talk 02:01, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea, and we should let Ed see whether it works. There are cases of serious policy violations where our hands are almost tied, and they shouldn't be. Noel, perhaps you could edit the page to tighten up that the specific policies have to be named. SlimVirgin 02:06, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
No, I'm genuinely confused—what does it do? I don't object to some sort of trial at all—but what is being put on trial? I don't mind sounding obtuse if that's what's needed to get the explanation for idiots. :-) JRM · Talk 02:10, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
It's a place to list and discuss blocks that might normally be regarded as controversial. For example, if we block a user for disruption, which we're allowed to do, or borderline vandalism, which someone else might not regard as vandalism. Or block for an NPOV violation, which again is a subjective judgment. We can discuss those issues here with other admins, and may only proceed with the block if other admins agree. Then we can list the blocks here, and monitor how effective they are. SlimVirgin 02:14, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
Ok, maybe I misread this - I thought it would be a place to discuss potentially controvertial decisions before they were implemented. Am I mistaken? Regardless, transparency is good - better than discussing these things by email or irc. Guettarda 02:18, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
What's the problem with using WP:AN/I for this, like admins already do? This seems like unnecessary duplication with the added disadvantage that the page is protected. JYolkowski // talk 02:19, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)