I am in favor of more transparency, not opaqueness. Letting bad actors slip away and regenerate with a new name doesn't advance the project in the least. Carrite (talk) 04:56, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the other comments, that keeping block logs in tact is very important. But in instances where there is genuine consensus that a block was incorrect, and the blocking admin agrees, then I don't see a reason why we shouldn't have a mechanism whereby a block can be hidden from the record. There are also some very good other points about the language that's used. "Block" and "ban" sound punitive; enforced "time out" or "wikibreak" are a much better description of what these things are supposed to be used for. WaggersTALK15:56, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In this situation, the blocking admin should reblock the user for one second and use a rationale along the lines of "I'm sorry; I shouldn't have blocked". Anyone not paying attention will miss this, but they should be ignored because they're not paying attention. Anyone paying attention will know to treat the previous block as a mistake, as retracted. Nyttend (talk) 12:44, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The right to be forgotten and the right to remember will always be at odds if they're considered absolutes. Blocks are not punitive, neither should our memories be: Every "request we forget" should be weighed up, and unless we have good reason to think the user who's trying to be forgotten is a risk to the encyclopaedia, we should endeavour to forget: Not because it's a right, but out of respect. -- Thanks, Alfie. talk to me | contribs01:18, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The block logs would only be removed from public view. Admins and ArbCom would still have access to the redacted logs. Removal will also serve as a preventative from preconceived notions and bad first impressions, especially if the "researching" user doesn't understand how blocks work, or how they occured - trying to trace it back to find out what actually happened can be an exercise in frustration. Atsme📞📧04:58, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:No vested contributors. Privacy situations can arise that I should see but the common editor shouldn't, and of course I have the viewdeleted right, but aside from block log entries that are themselves bad and need to be redacted, anything I can see in the block log should be visible to anyone who's not logged in. Nyttend (talk) 12:42, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nyttend, are you're saying the block log should remain for the whole world to see, logged in or not? Did you wikilink to the essay as an example of a potential admin cabal? I'm a bit confused as to what you are trying to relay. Atsme📞📧18:10, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Unless there's a significant problem with a log entry (significant enough to warrant RevDel immediately), yes the block log should remain visible. You a non-admin and I an admin are equal — aside from the necessary viewdeleted (see WP:VDA) and a few limited circumstances to prevent vandalism (e.g. Special:UnwatchedPages), you should be able to see everything I can see. And IPs are people too: they should be able to see everything you can see. My point with the link is that making bigger distinctions between admins and others furthers the caste divide between the two groups that already exists. Nyttend (talk) 00:15, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nyttend, you are one of several admins I admire and respect, and I cannot overemphasize that fact, as my impression of you dates back several years. I will add that if all admins thought and responded the same way you do, we'd be close to having the perfect Wikipedia. I'm not saying my thoughts should be the gage for all...I'm just saying that while the whole blocking policy may be workable in theory, it fails miserably in practice. As long as WP operates in the realm of anonymity, there is no incentive (or concern over being held accountable) to maintain desirable characteristics, such as trustworthiness, principal, conscience, character, sincerity, patience, consideration, or respect. Perhaps I'm mistaken, so please don't hesitate to provide your perspective. Those of us whose id has been made public (for whatever reason) dance to the beat of a different drum, so when an improper block occurs, it does reflect in a negative way on one's character...publicly. What purpose does that serve? Atsme📞📧02:39, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the problem is defining an "improper" block. Often, proper blocks need to be remembered: if you got blocked a dozen times a couple of years ago (all at once), and now you're in an RFA, it's entirely sensible for someone to question you about it. I understand that it can be a difficulty for you, but hiding block logs (for reasons that aren't abusive and don't warrant revdeletion) can impair tons of stuff, especially regarding problematic individuals who won't shape up and keep having to be brought to the aforementioned dramah boards. Improper blocks need to be marked with additional block log entries, e.g. my suggestion up above for a one-second block. Nyttend (talk) 03:13, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I just wish I could get my April Fools block (that admin has since been blocked) and the last admittedly Bad block deleted.
The first one was really odd, because the admin never could explain to us the difference between an edit and a revert, so we were left uninformed by that block.-- BullRangifer (talk) 20:37, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The right to be forgotten is absolute, and it's enshrined in EU law as a human right. If the editors of Wikpedia (many of whom are teenagers) want to have Wikipedia to not respect this right, then they need to have a "standing warning" on every page which allows new editors, many of whom use their real names, that anything they do will remain on Wikipedia FOREVER. This includes situations whereby some random person misunderstands them, or picks a fight, or what-have-you, resulting in a situation of unremovable defamation. So either respect the right to be forgotten ("right to disappear") or put a large red "floating" sign on Wikipedia so new editors know what they are getting themselves into. Sapphiresblue (talk) 09:36, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Sapphiresblue: Wikimedia is not subject to EU law, and stuff like the "right to be forgotten" is a great argument for keeping it that way. That being said, we do have the ability to revision delete or suppress genuinely inappropriate material, but "I wish that weren't there" isn't sufficient reason for that. We don't do disclaimers, aside from the general ones at the bottom of the page and in the TOU. SeraphimbladeTalk to me16:06, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This OpEd seems, to me, to be anchored with an opinion that blocking policy (Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users) be changed. And that banning policy should be changed. Wikipedia is implemented with transparency. All behavior here is public, save for that reldeved. The example of the EU right has no bearing because Wikipedia is a voluntary association with a single publication of record. Without publication, Wikipedia does not exist. Behavior records are part of Wikipedia policy. — Neonorange (talk) 03:20, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This really needs to be addressed a bit at a time. The place to start is with removing bad blocks from the log. Any block that was overturned by WP:ARBCOM, by a consensus of reviewing administrators (at WP:AE or WP:AN), by the community at WP:ANI, by the issuing admin as a conceded mistake, or (in theory) by WP:OFFICE action, should be immediately removed from the block log. This should be applied retroactively (at least upon request). This is pretty much a no-brainer. There is no community or project interest in retaining bad blocks. If there's a technical reason it can't be done, then they should be WP:OVERSIGHTed instead of literally deleted, so that even most admins can't see them. After we get that bit of sanity, then consider things like auto-expiring things from the block logs after X number of years, and other such proposals. Demanding multiple kinds and scopes of changes – "sweeping reform" – never works at Wikipedia. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 22:46, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
← Back to Op-ed