From: Skyring <skyring(a)gmail.com>
No, as far as I know IPs are not immediately blocked, only userids.
On checking, I see that this is so. Fair enough.
Nevertheless, as NYJ noted:
"1. Admin blocks User:foo.
2. User:foo logs in as User:foo.
3. User:foo hits 'edit page.'
4. User:foo block is renewed for another 24 hours."
You don't seem to be addressing this point.
Actually, I have. It's an alleged phenomenon, and if it happens in the real
world, it's extremely rare, and caused by completely unnecessary activity.
The solution is simple; go cool off for a day. And if you simply must hang
around, then don't hit edit.
That's the point. You have just conceded that even
if an editor was
"simply doing something odd with no intent of actually editing" the
block is extended for another 24 hours. Or a week or a month or
whatever.
I think that this is a bug. What do you think?
I think the likelihood of a true positive is vastly greated than that of
a
false positive, regardless of the many
protestations of innocence on the
part of those who get blocked by this. I also think it's easy enough to
get
an admin to reverse the block if you have a
reasonable story as to how
it
happened.
So this bug doesn't stop users from editing, because they are already
blocked,
Actually, it generally does stop them from editing, because up until now
their IPs weren't blocked. When they try to use a sockuppet (whenever it
was created), or edit via IP, they are now stopped from doing so.
and it doesn't work anyway because all the editor
has to say
is "my cat ran over the keyboard", regardless of whether he intended
to attempt to edit or not.
No, he has to give an admin a convincing story. Unsurprisingly, most of
those blocked simply rant of rave. The more creative use stories of the "it
was a different person using my exact same fixed IP address, they were doing
digging in the neighbourhood" kind. Amazing I know, but some people
actually use that kind of excuse, and then stick to it, even re-using it for
several different sockpuppets. Even more amazingly, other people actually
defend them as plausible when they use it. However, the strong vetting
process for creating admins typically ensures that none are dumb enough to
fall for it.
I think that this is a bug. What do you think?
I think it's a feature that's working quite well, and that might *in very
rare circumstances* provide a minor inconvenience to a banned user who is,
at the very least, doing something odd and unnecessary.
Jay.