I have to admit, since the recent batch of admins, I'm seeing a lot of blocking in my watchlist with personal reasons. It's getting a bit too heated in my opinion. I believe that admins should leave cases that involve themselves to other admins, which is the reason why we promoted so many in the first place. Otherwise, we're stuck with conflicts of interest, which degrades the credibility of admins and does not promote a positive attitude. A few recent blocks have been along the lines of "He insulted me, therefore I'm blocking him for x weeks", and while the block may be warranted, in all fairness it should be dealt by someone else.
Secondly, I feel that the block comments are inappropriate. Users can't insult each other as per COD:UTP, but admins have been insulting users in block comments that appear on the recent changes list. It doesn't help calm relations and it can be seen as an abuse of power. I do think that admins should be more impersonal and professional in handling user issues. --Scottie theNerd 03:25, April 18, 2010 (UTC)
- While I do feel that certain blocks may have been overboard, many times the Admin is simply listing personal reasons, which are only one or a few among many factors in the decision to block that particular user. Several times I have noted that while the particular user is listed as having "insulted [name of admin]", I have tracked the series of events that led to the block, which is often 3 days. These users are often one of the following:
- Trolls, acting like dicks just to be dicks
- Vandals, some of them vandalizing a user's page with insults, so that it is a duel-offense
- Flamers, who are insulting other users--unfortunately I have not seen many users that bashed PGB reprimanded, which I believe should be reprehensible, PGB is a horrid troll, but insults should be the target of warnings nonetheless
- Flame-baiters, recently, they happen to be those who insult PGB
- I have noticed that with the large influx of new users, many of them fall under these categories, and many of the "Face Revealed" blogs are the targets of new users insulting the users that post actual pictures of themselves. Anyone who wishes to see such occurrences, may view my blog or Dunn's blog for evidence of such users making border-line flaming comments, which are hidden.
- Then again, I did notice Chia's "scolding" of Callofduty4 as a direct result of several of his actions concerning the aforementioned users insulting PGB. There was, what might be called, a "skirmish" between those attacking PGB, and those defending him from these wrong-doers. These skirmishes led to the blocks of one user, and warnings of several others. Once again, this behavior disgusted me, it is wrong to insult the worst of men, for even he has rights under COD:UTP and DBAD.
- Really, my point is, While Cod4 did not word his warnings in the best of manners, the users that he "targeted" were guilty of what he charged them of, these users have done things punishable by the above mentioned policies, and I believe should be, in the future. Users need to know that all of these actions are wrong, and exactly how those actions are defined. Many users DO NOT read anything welcome templates say, and I believe users should be warned by Administrators that a one-day block will be imposed upon those who do not follow the policies, infracting more than once. I digress, back to what I was saying, while some of these blocks are, on the surface, abusive, when the evidence is examined, they are justified, however the accusing Sysop should state the full list of reasons in the block summary. I urge you all decide that new users be made to read the policies and manual of style, not urged, but forced. We must keep order on this wiki, this is done with regulations, rules, policies, bylaws however you wish to define them, and these are not being followed.
- On a similar note, User:Griever0311 wishes to commemorate this day as something along the lines of "Trolls Beware" Day, because of the Perma-bannning of PGB, and all as a warning to all those that would follow in his footsteps. I do not believe this block was unwarranted, the discussion on Trolls Beware Day can be found Here. Thank you for reading this, I hope we can conclusively decide on a course of action. Darthkenobi0Talk|Blog|Editcount 04:49, April 18, 2010 (UTC)
- Forcing users to read the rules will not do much. The majority of the internet will function as is until it violates the rules, and that's when the disciplinary committee (i.e. the admins) need to bring down the blockhammer in a clean and professional manner. This topic isn't about blocks being unwarranted. It's about culling the amount of comments made by admins during conflict user issues, both in talk page and in block logs. We picked admins to be above that, not to take part in it. --Scottie theNerd 11:34, April 18, 2010 (UTC)
I made a forum in which administrators should debate whether to keep PGB blocked. Blocking such a well known and well established user indefinitely cannot be the decision of one administrator. I also personally feel we have too many administrators at the moment, but so be it. 11:39, April 18, 2010 (UTC)
- Can't we just pretend things will work out ideally for once? Well honestly, all I was saying (with way too much filler) was that Admins block for good reasons, just leave some of them out in the summary. Darthkenobi0Talk|Blog|Editcount 17:59, April 18, 2010 (UTC)
- Edit and action summaries may never be changed, though, and they act as the description for why an action was done or what an edit was about. Let's say that in 20,000 years the Kingdom of New Wikia comes across the ancient ruins of the Call of Duty Wiki and they look through the logs. While all the actual content pages might have been corrupted in that time, the logs of actions and descriptions would need to be detailed and succinct as to what something was and why it was done. Saying "Bobby-Joe called me an idiot" as a description for a block an administrator issued seems very personal—so it's easily possible it was biased—, unprofessional, and does not tell what actually happened. Keeping it as unbiased and succinct as possible is the way to go. Having put "minor incivility/personal attacks after previous warnings" would tell the story in a fragmented sentence and there wouldn't be a need for much more.
- Still, administrators are not above autoconfirmeds. If an administrator insults someone, via message or block, which should either never happen or be very minor, it should be dealt with as if it was done by an autoconfirmed or a rollback. Sgt. ChiafriendRifleman 05:23, April 19, 2010 (UTC)
- What about obvious IP vandals tho. I mean, is there really any harm for calling a guy that put gay jokes in multiple articles a twat in his ban description? I've cut back on that, but its not the end of the world if that happens once or twice every six months. Darkman 4 09:18, April 19, 2010 (UTC)
- It's utterly crucial that an admin does not handle an incident that they are personally involved in. I've been a moderator on GameFAQs for nearly 8 years and with a userbase in the millions, maintaining the integrity of the admin team has always been a problem. We've had our share of moderators taking things too personally, resulting in some pretty epic scenarios which inevitably result in admins stepping down. --Scottie theNerd 07:36, April 19, 2010 (UTC)
- Agreed. In practice that usually means a problem between an admin and another user is sent to a more experienced admin to deal with, which is always a good thing. Darkman 4 09:18, April 19, 2010 (UTC)
I hope Chiafriend's part about personal blocks does not tie in with me blocking TheManOfIron. I would just like to say that it wasn't personal, he attacked not only me but other users too, and he's had a history of that sort of thing. But nevertheless, I agree with everything Chiafriend said, and everyone else for that matter.09:08, April 19, 2010 (UTC)