203:
comment from ignorant douchebag." Even though the comments are removed, the former sysop and their audience of admirers will continue to comment on the removed posting, the general intelligence of the user who posted it, why they are such a douchebag, etc. They will not allow any comment from the original poster to stand, even if it is a polite request to either include them in the conversation or stop insulting them. They find their comments removed, but their signature still attached to a "redacted" statement reading "redacted comments by enormous idiot douche." The former admin is blocked by a third party for a week for repeated unacceptable incivility. The block is reverted by another admin who has previously reversed a different block on this same user, with the explanation that a week won't stop them so what is the point of blocking them anyway.
195:
406:. These users sometimes have a fan club who will leap to their defense no matter what outrageous actions they may take. The offending user and the admin who unblocked them can sit back and let these users shout at you until you are sick of the whole affair. The fan club is only interested in overturning the block and chasing away the admin who dared to impose it. Knowledge policy, logic, reason, common sense, fair play, all these things are irrelevant to the fan club unless they seem to favor their side. They will twist and turn any statement you make, any action you make, to mean something sinister, and they will defend the unblockable in any way they can, even if it makes no sense.
367:. Sometimes, no matter how solid the block was, no matter how carefully you proceeded, your block will remain overturned. This is not necessarily a failure. The next time the unblockable does something similar (they almost always do eventually), it will be that much harder for anyone to claim it was just "a hiccup" and not part of a pattern. Your block of them will be revealed to have shown insight into what was going on, but only if you disengaged at the right moment and haven't been constantly hounding the user and stalking their edits waiting for another slip up. If they are that bad, somebody else will see it eventually.
281:
166:
331:
377:
230:
118:
147:
433:
271:. A very sneaky way for a friendly admin to help out an unblockable. They will argue that the previous short blocks failed to curb the problematic behavior, so nothing short of an indefinite block or an ArbCom case is likely to help. Conversely, if you make a long block this same admin will reverse it as being too harsh or on the basis of "time served" if it's been a few hours.
38:
103:
181:
talk page. The user posts their reasons to the talk page and adds the content back in again. The admin reverts them and says there is no consensus for adding the content. Another user who has the page watchlisted sees this and reports the incident at the edit warring noticeboard. A previously uninvolved admin blocks both users for one day. Within two hours, an
312:. Explain what policies are being violated, provide diffs of the edits that violate policy, but don't make your warning so narrow that they can essentially keep doing the same thing but without breaking the "letter" of said warning. If they remove your warning, don't add it back, or respond at all. Anyone can still see it in their page history.
448:
and say nothing while their "fans" attack you, and the focus shifts. Beware of this insidious tactic, don't get drawn into prolonged debates about your history, invite users who wish to do so to begin a separate conversation that is about you in general as that is not appropriate in a review of a single admin action.
415:. A favorite tactic is to write so much on the subject that it looks like a great debate with many facets and consensus is unclear, when in reality it is only one or two users who are endlessly going around in circular argument until most other parties have grown weary of the debate and wandered off elsewhere.
447:
to make the issue about you rather than about the problematic behavior of the unblockable one. Give polite, brief answers to questions regarding other admin actions you have taken, but don't let them flip the debate around on you. Users with a fan club are especially effective at this. They sit back
133:
These users usually have a great deal of experience, 40,000+ edits, and are often current or former administrators. They tend to work in one or more controversial topic areas, sometimes for many years. The simplest way to spot them is by their block log. They have usually been repeatedly blocked and
125:
Sometimes a long-term user or even administrator or arbitrator does something they shouldn't have done. Sometimes an administrator will go ahead and block them for it. And sometimes that user is rapidly unblocked by another admin, who may even openly admit that the user did the thing they should not
185:
thread is opened on the subject. An admin with a long history with the blocked admin steps in and decrees that there is no consensus for the block despite the fact that only two users have commented and one of them supports the block. The blocked admin is unblocked. Ten minutes later the unblocking
180:
by the admin anyway because they see them as messing up their near-perfect article. Seeing no reason for this, the newbie makes the same or very similar changes again. The admin reverts them again. And the cycle repeats, this time the admin warns in an edit summary to stop edit warring and use the
175:
An administrator has been editing the controversial topic of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin for four years. It is almost exactly what they want it to be. It says the right things, it is formatted well, and it has been relatively stable for some time. A less experienced user comes
202:
A former sysop has a habit of insulting anyone who disagrees with them. We're not talking minor condescension like "I don't think you understand the problem." It's more along the lines of "get your head out of your ass" or removing comments to their user talk with edit summaries like "removing
421:. From the unblockable, the admin who unblocked them, the fan club, and if you are lucky a few outside observers who are actually looking at this objectively. If you can't handle all that criticism don't do blocks like this, 'cause you are going to get it no matter how sound the block was.
305:
Even if they have 150,000 edits and have been blocked for the exact same thing multiple times before, any action you eventually decide to take will be challenged because they were not warned unless you issue a clear, specific, public warning to them, usually on their user talk
247:, often stated more nobly as "length of service," will usually be in the mix. This may seem odd as we expect our long-term users to understand policy better than the newbies who would have been blocked for the same offense, but somehow this makes sense to some users.
427:
from those same parties. If you really did make a huge mistake and there is an overwhelming consensus that the block was unjustified, and it's not the first time you have done something so stupid, you should consider this. If not, just ignore
356:
and you may find yourself being desysopped for it. The wheel-warring policy gives the advantage to the second admin, who can revert you on the flimsiest of pretexts. Then, until you have a strong consensus behind your actions,
457:
There is some consolation in the knowledge no user on
Knowledge is immune from sanctions. There are cases of so-called unblockable editors who have eventually become indefinitely blocked or lost privileges.
111:
Some users appear to be impossible to block no matter what behavior they exhibit. However, if you proceed very carefully you may be able to produce a positive result, whether it involves blocking or not.
326:. They are trying to goad you into responding in kind, making it a personal issue. If you do this even once, you've blown it and can never take any administrative action related to this person again.
253:. Even if they have been blocked for the same thing repeatedly in the past you will find this objection being raised if they didn't get a new warning less than 48 hours before the block.
265:. This reasoning implies that if this one user isn't allowed unrestricted access to the article or topic area, it will rapidly fall into ruin and become an embarrassment to Knowledge.
259:. The admin who did the block doesn't understand the many struggles the blocked user has had to endure, which somehow make it OK for them to edit war or be extremely rude to others.
342:
in whatever dispute they are involved in. Don't express an opinion about anything except the problematic behavior itself. Once you pick a side in the content dispute, you are an
126:
have done, a thing we would certainly block a less experienced user for, but that this user should not be blocked for. If you have seen this happen, you have met one of
482:
169:
17:
153:
While loosely based on actual events, these are fictitious scenarios and are not intended to represent any specific user or their actions.
513:
53:
It contains the advice or opinions of one or more
Knowledge contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of
352:
once it has been removed. Even if there is an emerging consensus that the block was valid, reimposing it yourself will be viewed as
346:
and your admin tools are out of play, even if the unblockable is an admin and is using them in the area. Don't sink to their level.
322:
important. One of the unblockables' defense mechanisms is to point insults at you. You must see this for what it is,
54:
206:
176:
along and begins making numerous changes. These changes are not vandalism by any reasonable definition but they are
121:
I can't believe I got blocked for edit warring – ME, THE DON! I'll get yous back for this, my gang will see to that.
518:
194:
294:
If you are an admin who has seen edit warring or other unacceptable behavior from such a user, you must proceed
58:
508:
503:
234:
220:
76:
469:
361:
can revert them. It's an unfortunate situation but it's all we've got to stop wheel warring.
393:
8:
443:
280:
411:
385:
343:
212:
177:
83:
68:
468:
Wulczyn, Ellery; Taraborelli, Dario; Thain, Nithum; Dixon, Lucas (February 17, 2017).
160:
61:. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.
46:
186:
admin remembers to unblock the other user as well, "in the interest of fairness."
470:"Algorithms and insults: Scaling up our understanding of harassment on Knowledge"
353:
330:
323:
165:
497:
380:
Are you going to sanction me? Watch out, my fan club will tear you a new one!
376:
182:
229:
189:
137:
461:
371:
288:
117:
240:
The reasons are varied, but tend to share some common elements.
284:
275:
467:
432:
134:
rapidly unblocked, often for edit warring or incivility.
452:
495:
365:Know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em
480:
431:
375:
334:Thought you were rid of us? Think again!
329:
279:
228:
193:
164:
116:
14:
496:
425:Calls for you to step down as an admin
481:Auerbach, David (December 11, 2014).
207:Why do they get unblocked every time?
245:How long they have been on Knowledge
141:
97:
32:
257:You don't understand the background
24:
59:thoroughly vetted by the community
55:Knowledge's policies or guidelines
25:
530:
514:User essays on dispute resolution
310:Be specific, but not too specific
145:
101:
36:
18:User:Beeblebrox/The unblockables
13:
1:
419:Angry posts to your talk page
7:
251:You didn't warn them enough
10:
535:
383:
210:
66:
30:Essay on editing Knowledge
350:Don't reinstate the block
235:Get Out of Jail Free card
109:This page in a nutshell:
519:User essays on civility
269:Short blocks won't work
437:
381:
335:
291:
237:
199:
172:
122:
27:Wikimedia project page
435:
379:
333:
283:
263:They are too valuable
232:
197:
168:
120:
57:, as it has not been
483:"Encyclopedia Frown"
474:Wikimedia Foundation
509:Knowledge blocking
438:
382:
340:Don't get involved
336:
316:Don't get personal
292:
238:
200:
173:
123:
303:Warn the user(s).
158:
157:
154:
138:Example scenarios
115:
114:
94:
93:
16:(Redirected from
526:
504:Knowledge essays
490:
477:
396:
223:
152:
149:
148:
142:
128:The Unblockables
105:
104:
98:
86:
79:
40:
39:
33:
21:
534:
533:
529:
528:
527:
525:
524:
523:
494:
493:
464:
455:
400:
399:
392:
388:
374:
278:
227:
226:
219:
215:
209:
192:
163:
146:
140:
102:
90:
89:
82:
75:
71:
63:
62:
37:
31:
28:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
532:
522:
521:
516:
511:
506:
492:
491:
478:
463:
462:External links
460:
454:
451:
450:
449:
430:
429:
422:
416:
407:
398:
397:
389:
384:
373:
372:What to expect
370:
369:
368:
362:
347:
344:involved admin
328:
327:
313:
307:
277:
274:
273:
272:
266:
260:
254:
248:
225:
224:
221:WP:TOOVALUABLE
216:
211:
208:
205:
191:
188:
170:Dancing angels
162:
159:
156:
155:
150:
139:
136:
113:
112:
106:
92:
91:
88:
87:
80:
77:WP:UNBLOCKABLE
72:
67:
64:
52:
51:
43:
41:
29:
26:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
531:
520:
517:
515:
512:
510:
507:
505:
502:
501:
499:
488:
484:
479:
475:
471:
466:
465:
459:
446:
445:
440:
439:
434:
426:
423:
420:
417:
414:
413:
408:
405:
402:
401:
395:
391:
390:
387:
378:
366:
363:
360:
355:
354:wheel warring
351:
348:
345:
341:
338:
337:
332:
325:
321:
317:
314:
311:
308:
304:
301:
300:
299:
297:
290:
286:
282:
270:
267:
264:
261:
258:
255:
252:
249:
246:
243:
242:
241:
236:
231:
222:
218:
217:
214:
204:
196:
187:
184:
179:
171:
167:
161:Head of a pin
151:
144:
143:
135:
131:
129:
119:
110:
107:
100:
99:
96:
85:
81:
78:
74:
73:
70:
65:
60:
56:
50:
48:
42:
35:
34:
19:
486:
473:
456:
444:boomeranging
441:
424:
418:
409:
404:The fan club
403:
364:
358:
349:
339:
319:
315:
309:
302:
298:carefully.
295:
293:
268:
262:
256:
250:
244:
239:
233:An original
201:
174:
132:
127:
124:
108:
95:
44:
178:rolled back
45:This is an
498:Categories
442:Attempted
412:filibuster
394:WP:FANCLUB
318:. This is
287:through a
276:What to do
436:Boomerang
289:minefield
69:Shortcuts
386:Shortcut
213:Shortcut
198:Rude boy
190:Rude boy
359:nobody
285:Tiptoe
183:WP:ANI
84:WP:UBA
487:Slate
453:Karma
306:page.
47:essay
410:The
324:bait
320:very
296:very
428:it.
500::
485:.
472:.
130:.
489:.
476:.
49:.
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
.jpg)
.jpg)
