Wikipedia talk:Account suspensions

message: ===Keep page===
#SlimVirgin - "good idea, see whether it works" 
#*"There's no reason admins shouldn't have a protected page for discussion. It's a lot better than it happening by e-mail and on IRC as currently happens." 
#Guettarda - "transparency is good - better than discussing these things by email or irc." 
#Dan100 - "I fully support this proposal. On Wikipedia I would describe myself as a "law-abiding citizen". I tend not to break the rules. Therefore, I have nothing to fear from this :-). And even if one admin does go too far, there are plenty more reasonable, objective admins around to sort the issue out." 
#*"This is how I am viewing this page: a clear endorsement for using small blocks for problematic users (a slap on the wrist). It's also more open - block logs are filled with lots of different blocks for myriad reasons; this place can clearly highlight policy breaches and the consequences. It is also a deterrent - a clear display of what will happen if you break the rules. This is good. I think keeping people on the task of writing an encyclopaedia within our rules is more important than slightly nebulous concepts such as perception." 
#-- Uncle Ed There are 490 admins - okay, maybe only 100 active. If any admin discovers that another has gotten above themselves, they can undo (a) page lock, (b) page deletion, (c) user suspension.
#Filiocht Unprotected, and with the stated aim of replacing discussion on IRC/Mailing lists, I am more than happy to support a trial of this page. Thanks for the clarifications, Ed. 
#*"I agree with dab: this page is pointless really, and protecting it only serves to reinforce an idea that admins are getting above themselves. In addition, there is a danger that it will encourage admins to enter into controversial blocking without bothering with the troublesome work of using other, less confrontational, problem-solving methods. As I have said elsewhere, fighting fire with fire just burns the whole place down. This page may well become just another can of petrol." 
#*"It would be possible to read this page as the cabal have created a place where they can boast of their high-handed actions while denying the victims the right to respond. Of course this would be a gross misrepresentation of your intention" 
#**Interested to find my comments from the talk page torned into a vote here without my say-so. Bolding now not to shout but for emphasis as my nect comment is important to me and could easily get lost in the crowd: I am willing to vote in favout of a trial of this page, with the proviso that it be moved to Wikipedia:Policy enforcement log (or something similar) and that a proper vote on its continued use be called within one month of today. Filiocht | Talk 08:54, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
#CryptoDerk "I'm all for a system that reviews admin actions" http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Policy_enforcement_log&diff=15778594&oldid=15764993
#--cesarb Useful, as long as it's not protected without reason.
# This is an important page and needs to stay. User:Sam Spade
#khaosworks. It's worth seeing just where this takes us. --khaosworks 02:57, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)
#Having a protected page is a good idea because it ensures that it is truly admin-only. That helps get rid of a lot of chaff, and I'm sure if there are any wrong calls, other admins can undo the damage and shift the conversation back to WP:AN/I. --Deathphoenix 28 June 2005 05:37 (UTC) (Note: my vote might not count, since I'm not an admin.)
===Do not keep===
#user:geni "major policy change .... The only reason which admins can block for ... is disrupting wikipedia (which is controversial)" 
#dab - "I don't see a reason to have this page, much less to have it protected. We are discussing problematic blocks on WP:AN/I."  
#nixie, If someone wants to know why I've made a block and it's not covered in the block log I assume they would ask me. This page also associates a user with bad behaviour, the problem being that it may colour other peoples judgement with future disputes.
#JYolkowski "Use WP:AN/I for this, unnecessary duplication with the added disadvantage that the page is protected." 
#*It's not "open" if non-admins can't edit the page. m:Protected pages considered harmful. If people are disrupting discussion, roll them back, don't create a protected page. 
#*"I might think this page might be useful if it weren't protected, but that isn't currently the case."  
#*"Protection indicates a lack of trust of non-admins. It doesn't seem to serve any useful purpose that couldn't be accomplished by rollback. 
#Instead of inventing new reasons to block users, admins should spend more time being useful. Grace Note 02:25, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Tally (10/4/4)

message: #user:geni "major policy change .... The only reason which admins can block for ... is disrupting wikipedia (which is controversial)" 
#dab - "I don't see a reason to have this page, much less to have it protected. We are discussing problematic blocks on WP:AN/I."  
#nixie, If someone wants to know why I've made a block and it's not covered in the block log I assume they would ask me. This page also associates a user with bad behaviour, the problem being that it may colour other peoples judgement with future disputes.
#JYolkowski "Use WP:AN/I for this, unnecessary duplication with the added disadvantage that the page is protected." 
#*It's not "open" if non-admins can't edit the page. m:Protected pages considered harmful. If people are disrupting discussion, roll them back, don't create a protected page. 
#*"I might think this page might be useful if it weren't protected, but that isn't currently the case."  
#*"Protection indicates a lack of trust of non-admins. It doesn't seem to serve any useful purpose that couldn't be accomplished by rollback. 
#Instead of inventing new reasons to block users, admins should spend more time being useful. Grace Note 02:25, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Do not keep

message: #JRM - "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. 
#*"I can see some use, but what you're saying makes no sense to me." 
#*"the general tendency of admins to stick together just because they're admins." 
#*It's a block log you can annotate.
#*It's like WP:AN/I, but explicitly editable only by administrators.
#*It's a replacement for the out-of-band IRC/mailing list channels in getting feedback/support on a possibly controversial block.
#*"Other admins will do the same, and do things differently; we hardly if ever compare results, to my knowledge." (emphasis added) 
#*"A protected page is still subject to scrutiny by anyone who cares to scrutinize it. In-line discussion by non-admins is made harder, though. There are obvious pros and cons to that, just as there are obvious pros and cons to separating article pages from talk pages." 
#Bovlb long summary, then goes on to say "This procedure would be lightweight enough that it would reach decisions quickly." 
#My objection was to its existence as a protected admins-only version of WP:AN. In the current version I'm still not convinced it's useful, but if it makes anybody happy by all means go ahead. --W(t) 22:58, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)#
#I'm not sure what exactly is being voted on.Geni 02:17, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutral/Mixed

message: I don't supposed that anyone noticed that I blocked someone already. Does that mean that no one, including geni, thought the 3-hour block was in error? I created this page to make such blocks more transparent, but everyone's focussing on the thickness of the window and the shape and color of the smudges on it. What about looking through it? 
Does anyone think the suspension was too long? unjustified? That the user was "really trying to help the project", or what? -- Uncle Ed (talk) 03:28, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
:Sounds more like you're asking us whether you were right in wiping a particular spot on the window... If you just wanted to get feedback on the decision, you should have (cross?)-posted to WP:AN/I. Of course people are going to pay more attention to creating a new outlet for discussing decisions than the decision that happened to kick it off.
:However, let me give some honest, specific feedback then: your block was probably pointless and ineffectual. Blocking a user for being an argumentative weenie will only reinforce their belief that "teh admins" are out to get them. A three-hour block is supposed to benefit the encyclopedia? It's just going to show the "newby" that we know how to spank people who are cheeky, so he'd better behave. If he comes back, he'll just know that one Ed Poor is a bad uncle, and the other admins are probably not to be trusted either. So now he's an argumentative weenie with a grudge. Were you "wrong" in issuing the block? Meh, I don't really care; I'm a vile utilitarian in this regard, and think judging it by its effectiveness is more useful. It's too early to call the shot on that, though.
:A valuable footnote to the above is that I'm what some people like to call a "newbie admin", that is, one who has not yet fully reveled in his abilities to block evildoers. I've blocked a few egregious vandals, but I haven't tackled any grey zone stuff, and I'm not planning to either. I'm insanely patient; as long as I can revert, protect and calmly argue, I'll do that before I'll even consider a block. Again, I'm not interested in the moral high ground on admin behaviour; I'm only doing what I think is most constructive. Other admins will do the same, and do things differently; we hardly if ever compare results, to my knowledge. JRM · Talk 03:53, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
:or it means that people were not online or that they had other things to do. how many admins do you think bothered to investigate the case if it breaks ten I will be suprised.Geni 12:43, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Specific policy violations

message: 02:50, Jun 23, 2005 Ugen64 blocked "User:Yuber" 
 with an expiry time of 24 hours (violating arbcom 
 injunction, 2 warnings given)
I haven't even looked at this yet. How can I check up on this? Not that I'm doubting Ugen, I've never even heard of him.
But what if I want to learn from his good example? Or what if I worry that he's setting a bad example? 
What if I want to know what the arbcom injunction is, so that I won't get a similar one? Etc. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 14:35, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
:ask on Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration or make sure you are online on wikipedia 24/7/52. unless of course you are prepared to accpt that things will happen that you are unable to keep track of.Geni 23:07, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Example

message: :This page is for blocks other than for 3RR and simple vandalism.
Shouldn't even 3RR blocks be open (public, transparent, discussable)? Sometimes those a pretty close calls. The mailing list is full of arguments. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 15:48, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
:Err they are see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRGeni 02:33, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit Wars

message: This page seems mostly redundant with WP:ANI. With six edits in the past month, it appears mostly unused. Any plans for this page? If so I propose a move to Wikipedia:Administrator's noticeboard/Account suspensions. If not, I propose  and/or merging with ANI. Radiant_>|< 00:40, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Based on the number of responses you've recieved, I'd say go for the historical. I'd recommend first posting on WP:AN about it, though. Blackcap (talk) 01:32, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please note that this is the very first page listed at Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list (because of the alphabet, but still).  If the page isn't in use, the reading list should be clarified for the benefit of new or candidate admins.  Chick Bowen 15:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I still use it, and would like to continue doing so. The size of AN/ANI is one factor, esp. when it comes to multiple entries. El_C 20:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I say suspend it. I've never so much as heard of this besides the reading list before. --maru   (talk)  contribs 21:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nah, you don't want to do that. It will look awkward for me to be adding entries to an inactive page, which I will! El_C 23:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the page is useful, as AN and AN/I get clogged. Obvioulsy it has fallen into a backwater, but that can be fixed by adding the link the the list of related pages at the top of the AN and AN/I pages. Moving it to a new name, as  User:Radiant! suggests, isn't a bad idea either. -Will Beback 23:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does anyone actually use this? 

message: FTR When I wrote that Hounen Matsuri translated as Penis Day I was doing nothing wrong and didn't deserve to be blocked. 132.241.246.111 06:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree with you. Perhaps the reason for you being blocked was that the administrator in question did not have enough information on the subject. The term Penis Day is usually viewed as a sexual vandal joke. --Siva1979Talk to me 03:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  It wasn't vandalism 

message: I've decided to be bold and tag this page as historical, seeing as how no one has added a single new user in four months. If people are actually going to use this, they can go ahead and remove it, but seeing as how it's not well watched or used, and is largely replaced by WP:ANI, I don't think there's much of a point. EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 22:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tagged as historical

message: This project page has one or more incorrectly used hyphens, which editors can find by searching on the page for "ly-".  
See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Hyphens, sub-subsection 3, point 4. -- Wavelength (talk) 18:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrectedly used hyphen(s)