User talk:Kate Schaefer

Not that I think any humans will read this page, but the instructions for unblocking an autoblock seem poorly written to me. That is, they repeatedly say to do something, which I did; that action resulted in an error message in the preview, and a more urgent repetition of the instruction to do the thing I had already done. Now I'll try doing a simplified version of that thing.

An easy-to-find, text-only, alternate set of instructions might help the Wikipedia-uneducated user in this situation.

(There was a block here; my request to remove it was denied, but it might actually be gone now.)Kate Schaefer 00:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, there's some technical limitations in place -- it all gets very complicated, in a mix of the privacy policy preventing us from open access to some of your information, the way the server generates pages, and our own "wikisyntax" getting in the way. We're frequently looking for ways to improve the system (I am aware of the particular error you ran into, but describing it would probably be more confusing than anything, at this point).

In any case, I've contacted the blocking administrator for comment, and we should be able to get back to you before too long. Usually we can review blocks right away, but this is a checkuser block, and those carry particular implications. Please bear with us, in the meantime, and thanks for your patience. Luna Santin 20:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like I was wrong about no human being viewing this page. Thank you. I remain blocked and mystified by it.

If I understand this correctly, because I've edited once and once only in the past, and then didn't plunge whole-heartedly into doing more things at Wikipedia right and left, I've lost my chance to participate in this open project, at least under my own name. This makes little sense to me, but the customs of a social enterprise in which I have not invested a lot of time need not be transparent to me. The customs of a social enterprise which intends to be transparent to the community, however, should be transparent to any person of good will, or at least discoverable by that person of good will with a bit of effort, and I have to say that after a bit of effort, what I've learned is that it will take quite a bit more effort -- and much more time than I'm willing to invest -- for me to be able to participate freely.

I'm not interested in inventing another identity and going forward under that assumed name. I may not even be interested in editing under my own name. I am interested in retaining the right to edit under my own name, and I have seen nothing that explains why I should not have that right.

When I look at the checkuser page, it says this is reserved for difficult cases, and neither my name nor my IP address are listed on the case list. Surely there is some way for me to find out what's going on without devoting tons more of my life to this. On the other hand, I can see that there's no particular reason why any Wikipedia volunteer who has already spent hundreds of hours of volunteer time on people who are active in the encyclopdia should spend any more time on my case, given my inactivity. Kate Schaefer 17:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]