From: Skyring skyring@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.