I believe that at present the autoblocker is doing more harm than good. I believe we should shut it off.
Alternatively, we could cause autoblocks to affect account creation and anon editing only. At present they also affect logged-in users, which is particularly unfortunate.
I recently blocked [[User:259]], and an ensuing autoblock also affected [[User:SFTVLGUY2]] who asked me to explain why the block applied since he was adequately identified by his username and password and had no history of vandalism.
Other than saying, "that's the way it works, I'm sorry," I had no reply to give him. And I hate giving out answers like that.
The Uninvited Co., Inc. (a Delaware corporation)
The autoblocker was designed for a purpose, and it still largely serves that purpose. I don't think there's a need to completely shut it off. However, they really shouldn't be affecting logged-in users, and I think that as UC says, having them only affect account creation and anon editing would be a wise move.
Out of curiosity, would this be difficult to actually put into place?
-- ambi
On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 09:18:34 -0700, uninvited@nerstrand.net uninvited@nerstrand.net wrote:
I believe that at present the autoblocker is doing more harm than good. I believe we should shut it off.
Alternatively, we could cause autoblocks to affect account creation and anon editing only. At present they also affect logged-in users, which is particularly unfortunate.
I recently blocked [[User:259]], and an ensuing autoblock also affected [[User:SFTVLGUY2]] who asked me to explain why the block applied since he was adequately identified by his username and password and had no history of vandalism.
Other than saying, "that's the way it works, I'm sorry," I had no reply to give him. And I hate giving out answers like that.
The Uninvited Co., Inc. (a Delaware corporation)
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l