Anonymous user
User talk:Themasterofdenial: Difference between revisions
→RE: Unfair Block
imported>Themasterofdenial |
imported>LostInRiverview |
||
Line 110:
:::[[User:Themasterofdenial|Themasterofdenial]] ([[User talk:Themasterofdenial|talk]]) 12:10, August 16, 2016 (UTC)
::::Themasterofdenial, my name is LostInRiverview, another bureaucrat here on TSW. I want to first and foremost apologize to you about the way that this situation has escalated. It is always troubling to me when disagreements between users ends in blocks, especially when said disagreements are with administrators. I also accept that you feel as though you are a victim in all of this.
::::I have to be careful, as I'm sure you understand, not to jump to conclusions or reach any snap judgments against you, C.Syde, or anyone else, especially since I am not fully aware of the back history between the two of you or the specific circumstances that led to the block being issued. Additionally, I need to be careful to [[TSW:AGF|assume that you both acted in good faith]] unless there is evidence to the contrary. So, if in my response to this discussion it seems like I'm being noncommittal or appear to be forgiving of C.Syde's actions, please understand that it's not because I agree with him over you, but because I don't want to prematurely pass judgment against him, just as you say he has done against you.
::::As you may now know, this wiki doesn't have many official rules, or even well-established practices, regarding when and under what circumstances an administrator may issue a block. Admins are empowered to act swiftly to curtail disruption on the wiki, but very little is done in an official capacity to define what disruption is and to what lengths admins may act in order to curtail it. There is no rule against admins blocking users on TSW for actions that took place elsewhere, prohibiting an admin from using past actions as a justification for extended blocks, or even for admins denying user appeals of their blocks.
::::Speaking specifically to the last point, the unblocking system was set up so that in the event an admin denies a block appeal, another administrator is free to override their decision. The present situation though demonstrates that this approach is flawed; if I had been aware of the block earlier I may have believed that it was unfair or unnecessary, but then I would be forced to directly oppose C.Syde, another administrator, in order to lift the block, thus undermining his authority, or possibly starting a dispute between him and myself. Even if I had felt that the block was unjustified and the appeal was valid, I probably wouldn't have lifted it simply out of deference to another administrator. Then again, you could also argue that the appeal process itself is stacked against the blocked user, since any administrator choosing to lift a block is in effect disagreeing with the administrator that put the block into place. I don't have an easy solution to this problem, but it seems to me apparent that, at the very least and until a better system can be devised, appeals should not be handled by the administrator that issued the initial block (unless the issuing administrator chooses to lift the block).
::::I have always been apprehensive of issuing blocks on TSW over incidents that have occurred off-wiki or on other wikis. My feeling has been that blocks on TSW should be limited strictly to behavior on TSW itself, in TSW's chat, and (to a limited extent) on the IRC Channel. However, there is again no rule prohibiting a local admin from blocking a user based partially on behavior exhibited elsewhere.
::::This incident demonstrates that we as a community still have a ways to go in clarifying what our blocking system is meant to be; that is, a system that is used as a last resort to disrupt those who come here explicitly to ''cause damage.'' In my opinion, simply "causing a disruption" isn't in and of itself worthy of warning or block, since one person's "disruption" can be another person's "passionate disagreement." It seems that too often, admins resort to issuing blocks out of frustration with users rather than for any specific bad faith action. And while we can claim that blocks are not intended to serve as punishment, they are often issued as such out of anger and frustration. I know this from experience, as it's very tempting to issue a block against users who are just being ''difficult'' in the way that they question the status quo and challenge the standards of the community. But while these actions might be classified as disruptive, I don't believe that they are inherently harmful and shouldn't be met with blocks or warnings.
::::In this specific case, I am afraid I have no remedy for any injustice you feel you have suffered. The block has already expired, and I am not prepared to demote C.Syde (as for one, I am not empowered under policy to unilaterally demote an administrator, and for two I do not believe that he acted deliberately in bad faith), nor am I ready to sit in judgment against him or his actions. I feel that the only way to move forward from this situation is to put safeguards in place through policy, but this will require further community discussion. When such a thread is started, I would encourage you to participate and help us create a better system for handling blocks and for remedying these types of dilemmas in the future.
:::: -- '''[[User:LostInRiverview|<span style="color:navy;">LiR</span>]]<sup> [[User_talk:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">talk</font>]] • [[User_blog:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">blog</font>]] • [[Special:Contributions/LostInRiverview|<font color="green">contribs</font>]]</sup>''' 00:18, August 17, 2016 (UTC)
| |||