Talk:Should Wiktionary avoid indefinite blocks of productive users?

Concerns
While plenty of users surely deserve to be blocked for a while, indefinite blocks are also quite badly abused. I'm blocked from Wiktionary and so I cannot call myself a disinterested party, but my contributions on Wikitionary were good and I did nothing wrong whatsoever. This debate is a good example of why the unsigned/unattributed debate format is a little absurd. I don't feel wrong for making my argument here (otherwise I wouldn't have made it), yet the reader should understand what my interest in the outcome is. According to the current wikidebate guidelines, I'm not even allowed to use pronouns to declare my interest in the subject. Not that I think my argument would be any worse off if they were to go to wiktionary and look at my appeal (which they've ignored) or the circumstances behind it. On the contrary. In any case though, it's problematic that these debates are made so abstract and detached from both the participants and from salient issues. How is the reader supposed to take this debate seriously if its only two participants are two users who've been indefinitely blocked from Wiktionary but do not disclose it? I feel it makes a mockery of my own argument and the issue itself. It is a serious issue because at least in my case, the block does seem like an abuse of privelage and a failure to observe policy. The scope of the argument is also needlessly specific. Why not all Wikimedia sites? I'm blocked from Wikipedia too, on grounds that are just as false. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 15:52, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

If it's okay with you, I'd like to move this to "Should Wikimedia projects avoid indefinite blocks?" AP295 (discuss • contribs) 16:48, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * You seem to want to debate this: Should Wikipedia and related wikis avoid indefinite blocks?, regardless whether the users have been productive. To that, my answer tends to be this: no, some indefinite blocks are clearly in order, e.g. of obvious spammer accounts. Should I argue in favor of that motion, I would probably say this: preventing indefinite blocks across the board, perhaps limiting the length to one or two years, would put a stringent limit on abuses of administrative power, since it would remove the possibly arbitrary administrative interpretation of whether a user has been productive enough; and that is an interesting argument. Be it as it may, it is a separate argument and separate debate to make. I find the motion for which I created the debate reasonable enough to be considered seriously and relatively moderate; the motion that disregards user's having been productive is rather radical. I find it worthwhile to discuss what is less radical first.
 * As for your block in Wikipedia, one contributing factor to that block is that you made almost no contribution there in the mainspace. When this is combined with endless debate, it can lead to a block, well or less well justified. The mainspace contribution / debate ratio is important.
 * I resent that. Many of my comments in talk space were made in defense of my mainspace edits and to deal with obstructionist editors, who seemed to follow me around from day one. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 20:12, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Whether this debate should be made more general: perhaps so. I am hesitating for how, though. The intelligent reader is going to be able to generalize in so far as applicable without us needing to tell them to do so. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 07:51, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, I already arguably conclusively refuted the motion I created: "There are cases that perhaps do justify an indefinite block, e.g. making threats of violence to users, doxxing of physical address of residence, or similarly egregious behavior." --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 08:03, 31 December 2023 (UTC)