Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Admins willing to make difficult blocks


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was No consensus likely, nom withdrawn. Guy (Help!) 15:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Admins willing to make difficult blocks
I think this page only serves to encourage the mentality that Wikipedia is under siege by evil trolls, etc. There's no visible useful effect of this page (has anyone actually been contacted as a result of it?) and really if you want someone to be blocked you shouldn't be contacting admins privately, you should be posting it on ANI or the like for transparency and to allow the community to have input. If you feel genuinely threatened by somebody then by all means contact the Foundation via OTRS or even better, contact real world authorities. This page vastly over exagerrates the kinds of harassment that have occured (I think maybe two people, in total, in the history of Wikipedia have been stalked IRL?) What even is a 'difficult block'? A block of someone who might begin harassing the admin IRL? By all means it should then be done by an anonymous admin if necessary, but I don't think a list of such admins is required to accomplish that as ANI threads and the like are viewable by all. If indeed people might get dangerous in real life, we should be contacting the police, not playing Wiki-Rambo. -- Naerii  04:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC) Withdrawing my comments, obviously consensus will not be reached. -- Naerii  07:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: despite this withdraw, I didn't close this nomination because other people have given delete opinions, which per WP:SK means this discuss should run either in its entirety or until WP:SNOW becomes applicable. Daniel (talk) 08:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: I propose that Editors_willing_to_make_difficult_edits be added to discussion and vote. seicer  &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  04:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete I think that if someone is (for example, if I was an admin, and I was…) not willing to make a "difficult block", then it would be between myself and my computer. Conversely, those who are willing should probably not flaunt it to unwelcome eyes. &mdash; $PЯINGεrαgђ  04:22 11 April, 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Biased and POV. It only applies to admins not regular users. Aslo all blocks need to be done by consensus like any other editing at the project. Besides being BITE, I see no usefulnes in this category. Igor Berger (talk) 04:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep: As an admin who has been stalked before and received death threats and physical hate mail for my actions on Wikipedia, this category is both useful and absolutely necessary. First of all, I don't see any valid grounds for deletion, since the nominators statement that admins haven't been stalked before is blatantly false. As for AN/I, we all know that AN/I is not appropriate for every post; that does not mean that this category is useless. OTRS does not block users, so contacting OTRS is not valid alternative. WP:BITE? What does this have to do with newbies? And how does the fact that it is an admin category mean that it biased? We have plenty of categories for admins. Jesus christ, I wish people would actually do some research about what they are nominating or voting for deletion on, before they actually do so; non-admins discussing an admin category doubly so.  &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  04:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I am sorry you have been stalked, and it should not happen to any Wikipedia user admin or nonadmin. I would like to ask you to strike this out non-admins discussing an admin category doubly soIt is offensive to nonadmin users. Igor Berger (talk) 04:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. This page lists admins that either have revealed no personal information about themselves or otherwise do not have concerns about blocked users using said information to attempt to bring harm to them. This does happen and has happened in the recent past. Thus, a list of such admins is necessary. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Bewildering, distasteful and redundant. --The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 04:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. No disrespect intended to the nom, but I think the deletion proposal misrepresents the list. Admins tend to become targets for abuse when they deal with the more aggressive vandals, sockpuppeteers, and the like. This list isn't about secrecy, or attempts to hide disciplinary actions; it is merely a list of admins who are prepared to step in when an administrator feels they have gone as far as they feel comfortable in doing. (As for "overstating", I can easily list at least a half-dozen editors - myself included - who are currently being aggressively attacked for admin or admin-type actions.) --Ckatz chat spy  04:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think I'm misrepresenting it; the list doesn't even mention cyberstalking: "This page has been created in response to the increasing numbers of admins who are being threatened and harassed off-site or in real life because of admin actions they have taken on Wikipedia." -- Naerii  04:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No desrespect to admins, but this category descrption should be reviced to include regular ediotrs beeing stalked off-wiki as well. I can give you an example of a regular editor who has been stalked off-wiki. So if the category descrption can be amended I would change my vote to keep. Igor Berger (talk) 04:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * See Editors_willing_to_make_difficult_edits. Cheers, -- B figura (talk) 04:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ooooh! Can I nominate that for deletion? seicer  &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  04:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure!!!. -- B figura (talk) 04:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC) ← please note the link  B figura  (talk) 05:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Please do, it should have been deleted yesterday. nonadmin willing to make hard edits? Booooo! All editors make hard edits everyday. Igor Berger (talk) 05:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Someone besides me!!! seicer  &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  05:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Done, and not to make a point, but because I really think it's a stupid and useless page that doesn't belong as part of the encyclopedia.  Equazcion •✗/C • 05:57, 11 Apr 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep: I find it ironic that a non admin has nominated the page and it appears that only non admins support its deletion. Honestly, only an administrator can really understand the benefit of such a thing.  This is a very useful page to have, for all of the reasons pointed out above.  Some admins are worried about stalking and other harassment and they have legitimate reason to be. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, maybe rename to something less subject to misinterpretation. WP:Admins with Thick Skins perhaps? Although that would defeat the symmetry with other similarly named lists -- B figura (talk) 04:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Useful and protects real life identities. Blocked individuals can seek the same redress for unblock, regardless of who clicks the button. But all admins can't equally protect themselves in real life. This would especially be true for admins who are legally minors, have families, or may be physically unable to protect themselves.  MBisanz  talk 04:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep: I'll echo Swatjester's comments here. I do not see any valid reasons for deletion, and the nominator's statement that there have only been two cases of stalking shows blatant disregard for accepting the truth. I've been stalked, so has Swatjester and several other administrators, and some of which has been made public at places like ANI -- usually when they leave the project for good. This nomination is only pitting administrators against regular users, and that is so far how the votes have been divided.  seicer  &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  04:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You have been stalked in real life? -- Naerii  04:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not something I am going to disclose, especially here. seicer  &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  04:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a yes or no question, but if you don't want to respond that's fair enough. Forgive me if I take such claims with a pinch of salt, however. -- Naerii  04:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - "Difficult" blocks are decided via public discussions, so there's always someone around who's willing to perform the block. We don't need a list like this to refer to. Besides which I think it defeats the purpose -- this could be like a "most wanted list" for people who wish to harass admins in real life. And really, Wikipedia doesn't need militant groups like this. This page views Wikipedia as some kind of battleground. Totally unnecessary.  Equazcion •✗/C • 04:44, 11 Apr 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I don't understand what's so "difficult" about blocking editors who wish harm on the project and its editors. Any admin should be willing to block such editors, or he/she shouldn't be an admin in the first place; moreover, any users--non-administrators included--are subject to retaliation and harassment by stalkers; blocking these troublemakers is hardly the sole or primary route to upsetting them.  This page smacks of smarmy self-congratulation for doing what any decent person would be inclined to do.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 04:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Some admins who have disclosed their identities have spouses and children. It could be be argued that it would be downright irresponsible for those admins to be willing to endanger their families by performing one of these difficult blocks themselves. This a mere resource for such admins, nothing more or less. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If there is genuine danger involved in making a particular action, then nobody should be doing it, no matter how well protected they think their identities are. Such things should be handled by the police. -- Naerii  04:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * So we can let vandals and POV-pushers roam free if there's a chance they'll go after whoever blocks them? No, they need to be blocked either way, and this list allows for that. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 05:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Some of you seem to be equating the act of hitting the block to some sort of suicidal "come get me" taunt. Getting on the wrong end of a POV edit war or outing an editor as a sockpuppet is far more likely to inflame these nutjobs than merely applying an inevitable block. The imagined martyrdom of such an act is really quite silly. Any respectable editor would stand up for the project against such people.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 05:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * c.f. Katefan0, NSLE, Gator1 (he's back, after two years), and other users who have been harassed in real life (and in case of Katefan, whose job was threatened over Wiki edits) to realize that there are some really psychotic people out there in the net. There are some of us who really agree with this edit.Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 05:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Some of us prefer not to be fired, or arrested, or to have the lives of our relatives threatened, as a result of our on-Wiki activities. And yes, all of these have happened to admins. --Carnildo (talk) 06:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * And to some of my favorite non-administrators as well. Ethically speaking, witnessing egregious harassment makes it easier--not more "difficult"--for a concerned editor to show solidarity and be inclined to help.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 06:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Huh? I don't understand what you're trying to say. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 09:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree with Naerii, once a real threat has been made. However, I think the utility of this list is that it is meant to be used when one merely suspects that an action might lead to unrational response. (Just my $0.02). -- B figura (talk) 05:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * What? By that measure anyone that ends up blocked, ever, has a risk of harassing admins. So this list should really be "List of admins willing to make blocks", no? -- Naerii  05:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No. There's a difference between most simple vandals which anyone can block and those users that need to be blocked that may be dangerous. Fortunately, the second sort is nowhere near as common, but unfortunately, the number is non-zero as well. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 05:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - All admins should be willing to make difficult blocks. What is this, "I'm only gonna be an admin for the easy stuff"? That's a whole issue in and of itself, and I would have thought that despite my opposition to this page, I would be questioning the merit of any admin who was not willing to do so. There's no value here, it's just as easily interpreted as "Admins who will stand in the face of anything, however valid, to defend a block", "Admins who are proud of the power they wield", all manner of things. This adds nothing of use to anyone, except perhaps some egos. As for the comment above, "only an admin could understand"? Huh? Wikipedia is not the first, nor the only site where people may gain experience with making difficult decisions. Let's not pedestal-push that there is some amazing, unique experience that you couldn't understand unless you've done it. Achromatic (talk) 04:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Last I checked, I'm a volunteer here, so I choose which actions I take. And if that means not doing blocks that may have real life consequences for me and my family, that's what it's going to be. -- Flyguy649 talk 04:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Without disputing for a moment the validity of protecting yourself and those close to you, all of these things carry a risk, however large or small. One could equally ask, and I think would be entitled to ask, "Are you willing to make the difficult decisions, and if not, why not, and if not, why should we confer all the 'privilege' for only some of the responsibility?" Achromatic (talk) 05:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. It's sad that this is needed, but that's reality, per the above keep comments. -- Flyguy649 talk 04:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, unfortunately it is needed, and I have seen it used. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - It should be noted that there's evidence that some non-admins are cyberstalked as well. I am reportedly being cyberstalked for being an abusive admin, lack of tools notwithstanding (I will not include a link to the website as it contains personal attacks against multiple Wikipedia editors). I note Geogre's proposal on the talk page of the page proposed for deletion, and he probably has a few good points. As to this page, I am concerned that it provides a false sense of security to people. Those who have put their names on the list, however, have done so voluntarily so they are making their own decision here. It looks like it needs to be cleaned up, though; suggest that any admin on the list who has stepped down or has not edited in 3 months be removed or (for the latter group) asked to reconfirm.  Risker (talk) 05:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Some of our banned users make the average vandal look like the pope. Its sad that it is needed, but unfortunately it is. Mr.  Z- man  05:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * obvious keep. I think the deletes are all confused about what this page is all about. ++Lar: t/c 05:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - Has anyone actually used this list before? Can anyone provide a case, or heck, two cases, where we had to actually seek out an anonymous admin to make one of these so-called "difficult blocks"? I'm basically trying to make this less of an abstract discussion. Show us some proof to go on, that this is actually a useful list. It's been around for about 2 years now, so if it is indeed needed then there should be more than a few cases we can refer to.  Equazcion •✗/C • 05:29, 11 Apr 2008 (UTC)
 * The idea is sort of so that it can't be traced - so that it looks as the block was made by an admin who just happened to be wandering by. If there was any way to trace requests of this sort, it would rather defeat the whole purpose of the system - the person making the threat would see it as though the admin making the request had essentially made the block themselves. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 05:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok then -- Have you ever used this list, or been contacted as a result of it? Has anyone else here? I'll trust your/their word, and not ask for links to specific cases. I'd just like to see people say "Yeah I have actually used this before", perhaps even "on multiple occasions", rather than these abstract arguments for why it could/should be useful.  Equazcion •✗/C • 05:44, 11 Apr 2008 (UTC)
 * "Have you ever used this list, or been contacted as a result of it?" ... Yes. More than once. I know other admins who have as well. Details not available on request, because that's the point. ++Lar: t/c 06:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, per what I wrote above. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 05:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Admins are chosen by the community because they have to make difficult decisions at times. So yes, it could be said that any admin should be willing to make a difficult block. BUT we also have a policy on conflict of interest, which applies to admin actions as well as editing. It's often a good idea to call in an uninvolved admin to deal with a touchy situation. When that touchy situation turns to something more severe, such as actual threats of harm, the number of admins actually willing to help out plummets. Like it or not, we are still volunteers, we still don't get paid for this, we are still people, and we had damn well better still have the right to avoid situations which we feel may do us harm. It is for that reason we have this list. The people on that list are the people we know are willing to step in to this situation and stop things before they get worse. As for those people who think it doesn't happen that often, you may be right. But that isn't to say it doesn't happen. I have received threats against me, doing regular vandalism patrols before I was an admin (Here's one. The picture was of someone holding a knife as though to stab someone (Admins can still view this file)). Now that I'm doing actual blocks and things, the chances of me getting threats are even higher. They still aren't huge, I'll admit, but they are large enough they must be taken into consideration. Cleaning up the list as was suggested above isn't a bad idea, but this list is very important, and probably quite integral to the majority of admins not on that list being willing to do what it is they do. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 05:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Bad nomination in my opinion. I'm sorry, but I have used this group of admins successfully over the past 10 months.  This doesn't do anything to enforce any mindset of any kind.  All it does is help admins work together in a more productive way.  Jmlk  1  7  05:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Adding a comment. I'd hate for more things like this to happen because of this.  Jmlk  1  7  05:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per Hersfold.  bibliomaniac 1 5  Hey you! Stop lazing around and help fix this article instead! 05:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. This page encourages strong-arm thinking, acting based on one's individual judgment in cases where others are likely to disagree. If a block has consensus, openly expressed by numerous people, then it isn't reasonable to think the blocked person will hold a particular vendetta against a person who is merely implementing the decision of others. If one admin steps in and blocks a user, without obtaining any kind of broader agreement, then sure, you may see the blocked user nursing a vengeful grudge against that admin. But we would encourage such cases by keeping this page; if we promoted the idea that "difficult" blocks should be decided by community consensus with a fair consideration of different points of view, then the problem would all but disappear: more openness and fairness means fewer unjust blocks and fewer aggrieved banned users, and it also means that genuinely deserved blocks are backed by a group, not an individual, making it more difficult to focus one's resentment in a way that might actually lead to some kind of harm. Everyking (talk) 06:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Good argument. Also, if I could add something: If there is a public open discussion on the issue, as there should be, there's no reason to think having an outside "anonymous" admin perform the block would protect anyone, since the people in on the decision are public knowledge. That's if it's done correctly. This page encourages the wrong way, because the private backroom decisions are the only ones, as far as I can see, where this would be useful. If the decision/discussion is public enough, this wouldn't protect anyone.  Equazcion  •✗/C • 06:06, 11 Apr 2008 (UTC)
 * The times the folk on this list are the most needed are when public discussion is exactly what is NOT needed. See WP:DENY. ++Lar: t/c 06:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * So now this page is only used where the blockee is seeking notoriety? That's the first I've seen of that argument. So far the argument has been that this page is just for people who threaten real-life violence etc. Anyway: That currently isn't policy. Right now the policy is the opposite: to discuss things openly. So again, if things are handled correctly, this page shouldn't be useful.  Equazcion •✗/C • 06:22, 11 Apr 2008 (UTC)
 * To put this into better perspective: This page was set up, if a recall correctly, in response to an incident where a (non-admin) user was threatened with real-life harassment by an obviously dangerous crackpot editor. The victim approached a random admin, the admin did the obvious thing and blocked the attacker. Next day, the attacker had outed the admin's RL identity, written to the admin's employer, the admin was in danger of getting sacked, and ended up dropping out from Wikipedia. Where in this story would public discussion have helped either of the two victims? Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Equazcion: There are a large number of reasons why a particular block might be more "difficult" than average, not just threats of violence. (Oddly, the page mentions more than just threats of violence, as outlined elsewhere on this very MfD). As for openness: The policy, in general, is to discuss things openly to the maximum extent possible. Sometimes it is not possible to be completely open though. (Why is the oversight list private? Why is the checkuser list private? Why is the arbcom list private?) If you don't realise that yet, you're probably not cut out to be an admin that makes difficult blocks. Maybe someday, though, who knows. ++Lar: t/c 06:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Those lists might be private, but the people on those lists engage in very public discussions. And your argument doesn't defend this list existing. It's more of an argument for its non-existence. If those lists are private because they make for an obvious attack list, then so does this. It should either be deleted or made private, according to your rationale.  Equazcion •✗/C • 06:43, 11 Apr 2008 (UTC)
 * Did you read what I wrote above, in direct response to your request? "Have you ever used this list, or been contacted as a result of it?" ... Yes. More than once. I know other admins who have as well. Details not available on request, because that's the point" The list of who's willing to make difficult blocks can't be private because then no one would know who to contact for help, would they? You give the impression of arguing in circles, I'm afraid. Many folks are explaining why this is needful. Internalise it and move on. ++Lar: t/c 06:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You never cease to be abrasive, Lar. Yes, you answered my comment above and I thank you for that. This is a different point I've brought up, and you didn't answer it adequately. I didn't say I want the list to be private. I said your rationale is not an answer to my concern -- it is only rationale to privatize or delete the list entirely, if anything. My point still stands, if you'll read it above. The fact that those lists you mention are private doesn't say anything about how useful this list is. The discussions those people engage in are still public. In order to defend your point you would have to defend a practice of discussing issue privately, or not at all.  Equazcion •✗/C • 06:54, 11 Apr 2008 (UTC)
 * My sincere apologies, but I find communicating with you more than ordinarily difficult, which is odd, I don't usually have this trouble unless the person I'm communicating with is clueless... must be something you bring out in me, because although you're often, in my view, wrong about things you're not actually clueless. Anyway, this is important enough that I feel I have to persevere. Ok, from the top. There is a need for "difficult" blocks to be made. That's well established, some blocks are easy enough, while others can have negative consequences for the person blocking if that person is vulnerable to certain things. Many refer to that need in this very discussion, and clearly some admins are more vulnerable than others (I'm not, for example, vulnerable to "outing" pressure, since I'm not anonymous, but I am vulnerable to other sorts of pressure that an actual pseudonymous admin might not be). Sometimes the reason for the block is public, and sometimes (per WP:DENY as well as for other reasons) it isn't. (for example if we have a known disruptive stalker with a new sock, the thing to do is quietly block the new sock and not give any undue publicity to that sock. This comes up on the CU list pretty routinely). Now, if the block is publicly discussed, any admin could make the block... and presumably, any admin would WOULD have added themselves to the list and happened to see the discussion would make it, while any admin who WOULDN'T have added themselves and happened to see the discussion wouldn't make it, so the list wouldn't be needed in that case. But, and here's the important part, if the block isn't one that should be publicly discussed (and you'll just have to take my word for it that such blocks get privately discussed all the time, on the very lists I referred to, as well as other official lists of the projects, and as well as by direct personal contact) then the list of who can make these blocks is indeed needful. Especially in the latter case, if the person being harassed by the stalker doesn't want to give the stalker the satisfaction of knowing that the stalker is getting to them, the thing to do is privately contact one of the people on the list, present the facts, and let that admin make the call as to what to do. The less publicity the better. Sure, if the block comes up on AN/I then justification is provided by that admin, but not every block does. ++Lar: t/c 07:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You're basically saying there does exist proof that this list is useful, but by definition it can't be disclosed. I'm sure you can understand that's at least difficult to accept. My problem isn't so much the list itself, but its encouragement of dealing with things privately rather than publicly. There isn't much oversight on Wikipedia; we basically rely on the public nature of discussions as a natural check. But if we're to say it's okay to deal with certain things privately (namely blocks), then what is there to ensure that those are being handled properly, and that they're only used in appropriate situations? <small style="font:bold 10px Arial;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap"> Equazcion •✗/C • 07:44, 11 Apr 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: Since when do banned trolls tend to do what is "reasonable to expect" they would do? Fact is, they don't. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Fairly strong Keep sorry, I think this thing (WP) is getting big and there have been some serious issues which beg this list. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, if a significant number of users state they find (or have found) it useful in practice People often assume "difficult blocks" means police scale involvement, and reason that if a block were "difficult" then one would leave it to police. That's worth clearing up. A block might be "difficult"  for a given admin  simply because the user has used their all-purpose ISP off-wiki email account, or information from when they were new, or because they can be annoyed or chased off-wiki, or because the user is tenacious and doesnt drop things, or because they have implied things that legally don't count as "threats" but the admin has children, or they can be stressed easily, or "trolled" elsewhere onto other sites easily. None of those are "actionable", but all of them are reasons why a given admin might consider a given block likely to be "difficult". In such circumstances a discussion on ANI isn't needed, or even a post about it. The admin simply wants to find someonbe who is in different circumstances or mindset, and not bothered by the possibility. The page gets used for that far more than extreme cases. I've never personally used it, because I don't have issue with dealing with such users, but others do. If they do, and it's found useful, then for them its been a helpful resource. Would support a rename if a suitable rename or broadening of scope existed. FT2 (Talk 06:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, then, they should re-consider the relative risk-reward ratio. Something seems skewed here. Whilst no-one deserves any harassment or such, the point you say requires clearing up is quite explicitly disclaimed in the very article itself, "People who have been threatened in real life". I would be questioning whether someone who finds the blocking of someone "difficult" "because the user is tenacious and doesn't drop things", "can be stressed easily" or "trolled elsewhere" is really appropriate as an administrator. Again, since it is open to misreading, there is NO justification for any of this, but some of that reasoning is much akin to a referee passing on making calls because he might be smack talked for it. It doesn't, or shouldn't, work like that. I don't like the idea of "I want to be admin. But not for anything that might be awkward or difficult, that's for someone else". Achromatic (talk) 06:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Most people have a limit (in duration, or intensity). That argument you're making sounds like "you shouldn't accept adminship unless you are prepared to deal with all cases, however tenacious or malicious they might be, and even if you didn't realize how a minority of editors are". I don't think I can agree. If a given case crosses that limit, then that's not to say the admin shouldn't handle those cases they can, and be able to find others willing to handle the few they can't. The skills to edit well and even admin well, do not necessarily mean skill with all very difficult editors. To underline that, as an admin I was doing that role last year (handling escalation of difficult cases) for very highly reputed and experienced admins of impeccable skill and often trusted at OTRS. I happen to be good at it, in the same way that some happen to be good with bots, or FAs, or graphical design. I don't assume that being exceptionally good at that skill, is a prerequisite criterion for all admins, though. That's exactly why we have many admins, so that if a given skill is needed, others may have it. Admins are just users. They can take on cases they wish, and may pass cases to others at any time, as they see the need. This page can help with that. FT2 (Talk 13:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * (ecx2)Comment' All that's required for the nom's concern to be addressed is editing of the page to reflect general opinion on the prevalence of stalking. A list of admins reasonably certain that there is no pvt information available on them might still be useful. To avoid all concerns of this sort, I would suggest replace with category, which would do the job more effectively, IMO. -- Relata refero (disp.) 06:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge as a short section into WP:HARASS with a category/subpage, and publicized with a link from WP:ADMIN and WP:BLOCK? That could work. ("==Admin harassment==: Due to their involvement in administrative matters, admins can be at risk of harassment by users they block or whose disruptive actions they attempt to prevent.....") Also centralizes all our harassment info potentially making it more accessible (Disclosure: - the user information on "dealing with harassment" on that page was one of my additions.) As often happens, the situation and handling is the focus, rather than any one particular means of describing the approach. That there is a problem and there are admins willing to help, and admins are asked to state if they would help others with it, is the point. Whether it benefits from its own page or not is secondary to that. FT2 (Talk 06:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note - added section WP:HARASS. Whatever happens at this MFD, a section there is probably a Good Idea. We can trim it down (and use a template) if the AMDB page survives MFD, or whatever, but whichever way this MFD goes, a section in WP:HARASS (exact wording and any linked page to be decided) seems a pretty good idea regardless. FT2 (Talk 06:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep This does not enforce a hierarchy. Not all admins are willing or able to take risks of this nature, while for others it's not a problem at all. My understanding is anyone can add or remove themselves from this list at any time, and it is purely a voluntary commitment. Note also that this does not mean that blocks made by these people are more worthy or more invincible - they're subject to exactly the same unblock procedures and AN/I review etc as any other block. Although I don't work in areas of the encyclopaedia which have required it, I respect that some do and anything which makes their lives easier should be encouraged. Orderinchaos 08:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've never needed to use the page in any way, so I'm pretty neutral on this. That said, if someone says they've been stalked, and I believe them (and I have no reason not to distrust Swatjester), then I see no harm in keeping such a page for their good, if nothing else. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 09:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Extraordinarly strong KEEP &mdash; There are a couple of things at play here. First, this is more a page for admins to reference.  Not to sound elitist, but unless you follow some of the reports at WP:ANI, most people will not know that real-world threats of violence remain disproportionately targeted at administrators, presumably because it's the only viable escalation for troublemakers when faced with a block or page protection.  Adminship is a sign of trust&mdash; not an application to be a policeman.  Many of our trusted editors, and consequently admins, have families.  So, while most of adminship is blocking vandalism, sifting through pov-pushers, and resolving disputes, it's obvious that given the size of the project and the breadth of its subject matter, invariably we'll run across a few people with antisocial personality disorder who are willing to do anything&mdash;anything&mdash; to get their way.  Thankfully, these types of people, from what I've seen, are extremely rare.


 * Inevitably, these types of people will find their way to suspected socks, and while there are multiple admins on the project, only a core group of them (or maybe even only one or two) will be well-informed when it comes to the puppeteer's style of edits&mdash; assuming that the vandal only edits a minor subset of pages. As a result, the same group of administrators will likely be the ones blocking the person repeatedly. Consequently, those admins are perceived as no longer one of a thousand admins, but rather an adversary.  This is part of the reason normal policemen wear uniforms&mdash; so that when one person is repeatedly arrested for assault, the person who is arrested gets pissed at the police, as a whole, instead of the actual policeman, and is less likely to retaliate at the one officer that arrested him.  Notice: the popular song lyrics don't read "fuck `dat Officer Smith;" instead, it's "fuck `da police."


 * Because administrators are normal editors, and because the same administrators tend to be involved in the same tough cases, the likelihood of retaliation grows at a geometric rate as greater amounts of uniformity are lost. After all, if the same cop stopped you for speeding every time you sped, you'd start to wonder if the cop was stalking you&mdash; not whether you should stop speeding.


 * It is unfair, and, as it would have it, infeasible, to demand of an administrator who loves to edit biology articles and revert vandalism to make a choice between continuing to help out the encyclopedia and the safety of their family&mdash; no matter how incredible the threat. We have this page for those types of situations, so that a threatened admin can both disarm the prospective attacker by not blocking him, but another admin can still prevent the attacker from causing trouble.  This has the benefit of psychologically making the attacker realize that while making a threat against one admin might work, there will always be an admin who is presumably invulnerable to such threats and/or action.  Worst case, yet another admin from the page can make yet another block.  It's considerably harder for someone to track down and make good on threats of violence made to ten admins as opposed to only one.  Because of this, continued escalation of the situation is quashed, and retaliation against the first admin to receive real-world threats is unlikely given the "new evidence" that doing so would be futile in relation to the attacker achieving his goal.


 * Thus, this page is fundamentally different from any other page on the encyclopedia, and is critical to its operation. Though, I admit it is nice to see that someone did think it wasn't, because it simply confirms that it only very sparingly has to be used.  Cheers. -- slakr  \ talk / 09:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per all the reasons provided above. I normally wouldn't vote this way but many people have put it much better than I could have done. Seraphim&hearts;   Whipp 10:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete; encourages heavy-handed secretive cabalism, and the general mindset of victimology and demonization that is harmful to the Wikipedia culture. (This vandalized version is funny in a ha-ha-serious way.) *Dan T.* (talk) 12:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep For all the reasons stated above, namely, some people prefer not to be stalked and other are willing to make that difficult for them. (Also, I find it funny most Keep votes are admins and all delete votes are non=admins) The Placebo Effect (talk) How's my editing? Please contribute to my editor review. 13:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * comment - let me take a minute to explain why I don't like this. If an admin is contacted to make a block (or, rather, look at a situation with an eye to deciding whether to block, since it's not appropriate to block on someone else's say-so) based on their presence on this list, they've got the preconceived idea that it is a difficult block. That is, they will believe - and the person being blocked has no opportunity to appeal this accusation - that the person they're looking at is someone who would be inclined towards harassment, and that may affect their judgement of the person's edits. I don't think we should be encouraging a bunker mentality. --Random832 (contribs) 13:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * But isn't it the same situation if someone brings up a blocking issue at AN/I? Seraphim&hearts;   Whipp 13:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - sadly needed for people who harass others but keep on the right side of policy. Sceptre (talk) 13:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.