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

Reply via email to