On 10/01/2008, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 10, 2008 10:58 AM, Majorly axel9891@googlemail.com wrote: [snip]
Blocking is not the way to solve it.
Yea, if we used blocking to deal with people who refuse to behave correctly then we wouldn't have per user/per page word bans, per user protection, admin delegated upload rights, page move, and template editing rights.
Just using blocking to throw out bad people would clearly break our established practice of admin micromanagement of every user action.
And your idea doesn't remove the idea of a "clique" - your idea is "innocent until proven
guilty"
approach - but as we've seen, it simply wouldn't work.
Right! If we followed his idea we'd have a website that everyone could edit. That could never work. At all. Nope. Here at Wikipedia we make everyone go through an approval process before they can edit. Good thing we have a special editorial group selected for their ability to choose others.
(Not that I'm opposed to the idea of having (more) user assigned user rights ... but for rollback when even anons get undo? come on!)
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
You are over-exaggerating my comments. Do you really expect a four day old account to know how to use rollback appropriately? I certainly don't, and I think having a scarred block log for messing up with a rather powerful tool that until the other day only admins could have is a little unfair to the user.
If we followed his idea where everyone got rollback, that would be the situation. I didn't say that they couldn't edit, nor did his idea say that they could. This is about *rollback*, not general right to edit. And undo is not rollback.