Older discussions can be found in the archives:
Happy 2017, Wikivoyagers! Talk page messages for me should be left here, or else please see the archives (right) for older discussions.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:21, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Reverting your edits on Canada
- No problem. I was fairly sure you weren't edit warring, but I wanted to call your attention to the situation anyway.
- Thanks for your edits!
- -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:17, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up. I can't believe I didn't see that the article didn't have a by car subsection. Did you notice anything else in the Kenosha article that needs done before it can be promoted to guide status? DethDestroyerOfWords (talk) 14:44, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
I didn't want to hijack another discussion so I'm commenting here, but re: this comment, I'm not suggesting that the user in question behaved appropriately, I'm suggesting that it's harder to deal with problem users when phrases like "this doesn't push me in the direction of showing him much mercy" or "unless you want to see your name come up on this page in a different capacity" are used. As admins who have to implement a block, it's particularly important to ignore provocation and stick to guidelines about not getting personal, otherwise it undermines credibility when a ban eventually needs to be implemented.
I know you get frustrated with me and others, and that you have in the past expressed opinions that admins need to be tougher on disruptive users, and while in some cases I agree, in many others I think things could just as easily be handled by not taking the bait offered by trolls, thus avoiding the need to take actions that can be seen as heavy-handed. -- Ryan • (talk) • 23:44, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- I understand your point of view, Ryan, and please let me emphasize that while we may have our differences of opinion on how best to deal with situations like this, I have a great deal of respect for you and full faith that you have the best interests of this site in mind, so if you may have wondered otherwise, please don't.
- As concerns this situation, though, I think the real problem is that Wikivoyage's culture of endless patience toward trolls, though diminished since the resolution of the Alice/Frank/118 saga, hasn't completely died out yet. A summary permaban for Spendrups should have been a quick, easy, and uncontroversial solution for a user who very clearly falls into the "not here to create travel guides" category in Wikivoyage:How to handle unwanted edits#User ban, yet if I had done that, I'm sure I would have heard from somebody about being too trigger-happy with the sysop tools. So, instead, and also bearing in mind the amount of time that had passed since his most recent edit, I had no choice but to call attention to the situation, and rehash Spendrups' history here for those reading the thread, so that they might know exactly what they're dealing with. But that had the unfortunate side effect of feeding the troll, hence your comments. Maybe you're right that ignoring Spendrups and hoping he'd get bored and go away would have been a better way to deal with the problem than what I did - but that's a roll of the dice with a user like Spendrups whose edit history is low-volume and sporadic, but who has caused a disproportionate amount of trouble with those few edits (example, example, example, example, example, and just look at some of his edit summaries). Better still would have been if some admin could have simply banned Spendrups, as policy clearly allows for, without having to deal with a lot of backtalk from other users. That would have been a quick and efficient solution to the problem that would have denied recognition to the troll and, more importantly, also eliminated the nagging possibility that he might resurface sometime in the future and cause problems all over again, as indeed he just did. More broadly, I think there's something very illogical when a user's judgment proves trustworthy enough that the community would see fit to pass them through the admin vetting process, yet after being given the sysop tools suddenly everyone's breathing down their neck and second-guessing their decisions for no particular reason. That's not a reference to you, me, or this particular situation, but it's something that regularly hampers admins' ability to solve problems like this in an ideal way, and as I see it that's the root problem that needs to be solved. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:54, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Re: "yet after being given the sysop tools suddenly everyone's breathing down their neck and second-guessing their decisions for no particular reason" - I agree that it can sometimes seem like there is a lot of second-guessing, and that it could be significantly reduced if everyone remembered that the other editors here all mean well. However, there are always going to be differences of opinion - to cite an example, you wrote "if some admin could have simply banned Spendrups, as policy clearly allows for", but I'd be surprised if there wasn't disagreement that policy clearly allows a ban; differences of opinion remain as to how much to tolerate before a block is appropriate, when the Wikivoyage:How to handle unwanted edits#Escalating user blocks process applies and, if it does, whether that process is being followed. I'm not sure that having those sorts of checks is such a bad thing, although I agree that if they too often lead to stalemates then we have a problem.
- In any case, I've made a conscious decision recently that I'm less happy when I'm involved in policy discussions and more happy when I'm writing travel guides, so I'll wander off quietly now. I appreciate all you do for the site, I hope that I don't annoy you too greatly when I have a difference of opinion, and I very much hope that in a decade from now we're both still here happily editing & engaging in the occasional argument over policy interpretation. -- Ryan • (talk) • 01:48, 18 January 2017 (UTC)