I'm sure this idea has already been kicked around, but why aren't there selective blocks, i.e. blocks restricted to one or more certain pages? I don't mean temporary bans on articles or article groups as occasionally imposed by the ArbCom, but a block-button block.
It could e.g. give users with specific conflicts of interest (not necessarily in a corporate sense, also like strong personal bias/POV etc.) the opportunity and even an incentive to work on completely different areas, as they would be working to actively restore the community's trust in their willingness to contribute to the encyclopedia as a whole. Wouldn't that be a lot more constructive than temporarily revoking '''all''' editing privileges for things like an 3RR violation on a certain page, or personal attacks in some heated debate on a certain talk page? If it later turned out that the user in question is generally intolerable, s/he could accordingly be fully blocked (as usual) to give them a stronger warning.
So, well, nevermind if the idea has already been discussed and rejected.
Adrian
On 8/22/07, Adrian aldebaer@googlemail.com wrote:
I'm sure this idea has already been kicked around, but why aren't there selective blocks, i.e. blocks restricted to one or more certain pages? I don't mean temporary bans on articles or article groups as occasionally imposed by the ArbCom, but a block-button block.
It could e.g. give users with specific conflicts of interest (not necessarily in a corporate sense, also like strong personal bias/POV etc.) the opportunity and even an incentive to work on completely different areas, as they would be working to actively restore the community's trust in their willingness to contribute to the encyclopedia as a whole. Wouldn't that be a lot more constructive than temporarily revoking '''all''' editing privileges for things like an 3RR violation on a certain page, or personal attacks in some heated debate on a certain talk page? If it later turned out that the user in question is generally intolerable, s/he could accordingly be fully blocked (as usual) to give them a stronger warning.
So, well, nevermind if the idea has already been discussed and rejected.
Adrian
There's no good general purpose access control mechanism in MediaWiki right now, to build such a tool upon.
It might be useful, but we can't do it right now.
George Herbert wrote:
On 8/22/07, Adrian aldebaer@googlemail.com wrote:
I'm sure this idea has already been kicked around, but why aren't there selective blocks, i.e. blocks restricted to one or more certain pages? I don't mean temporary bans on articles or article groups as occasionally imposed by the ArbCom, but a block-button block.
It could e.g. give users with specific conflicts of interest (not necessarily in a corporate sense, also like strong personal bias/POV etc.) the opportunity and even an incentive to work on completely different areas, as they would be working to actively restore the community's trust in their willingness to contribute to the encyclopedia as a whole. Wouldn't that be a lot more constructive than temporarily revoking '''all''' editing privileges for things like an 3RR violation on a certain page, or personal attacks in some heated debate on a certain talk page? If it later turned out that the user in question is generally intolerable, s/he could accordingly be fully blocked (as usual) to give them a stronger warning.
So, well, nevermind if the idea has already been discussed and rejected.
Adrian
There's no good general purpose access control mechanism in MediaWiki right now, to build such a tool upon.
It might be useful, but we can't do it right now.
Impossible or not, Andrew Garrett proposed to write this feature himself, to wikitech-l on August 12. You should take him seriously, he's very capable. If you want it done, I suggest you give him feedback and encouragement.
-- Tim Starling
It would be a useful feature to have, seeing as blocks aren't meant to be punitive.
On 8/23/07, Tim Starling tstarling@wikimedia.org wrote:
George Herbert wrote:
On 8/22/07, Adrian aldebaer@googlemail.com wrote:
I'm sure this idea has already been kicked around, but why aren't there selective blocks, i.e. blocks restricted to one or more certain pages? I don't mean temporary bans on articles or article groups as occasionally imposed by the ArbCom, but a block-button block.
It could e.g. give users with specific conflicts of interest (not necessarily in a corporate sense, also like strong personal bias/POV etc.) the opportunity and even an incentive to work on completely different areas, as they would be working to actively restore the community's trust in their willingness to contribute to the encyclopedia as a whole. Wouldn't that be a lot more constructive than temporarily revoking '''all''' editing privileges for things like an 3RR violation on a certain page, or personal attacks in some heated debate on a certain talk page? If it later turned out that the user in question is generally intolerable, s/he could accordingly be fully blocked (as usual) to give them a stronger warning.
So, well, nevermind if the idea has already been discussed and rejected.
Adrian
There's no good general purpose access control mechanism in MediaWiki right now, to build such a tool upon.
It might be useful, but we can't do it right now.
Impossible or not, Andrew Garrett proposed to write this feature himself, to wikitech-l on August 12. You should take him seriously, he's very capable. If you want it done, I suggest you give him feedback and encouragement.
-- Tim Starling
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 22/08/07, Adrian aldebaer@googlemail.com wrote:
I'm sure this idea has already been kicked around, but why aren't there selective blocks, i.e. blocks restricted to one or more certain pages? I don't mean temporary bans on articles or article groups as occasionally imposed by the ArbCom, but a block-button block.
It could e.g. give users with specific conflicts of interest (not necessarily in a corporate sense, also like strong personal bias/POV etc.) the opportunity and even an incentive to work on completely different areas, as they would be working to actively restore the community's trust in their willingness to contribute to the encyclopedia as a whole. Wouldn't that be a lot more constructive than temporarily revoking '''all''' editing privileges for things like an 3RR violation on a certain page, or personal attacks in some heated debate on a certain talk page? If it later turned out that the user in question is generally intolerable, s/he could accordingly be fully blocked (as usual) to give them a stronger warning.
So, well, nevermind if the idea has already been discussed and rejected.
Adrian
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Why not indeed. This would be a very useful feature.
On 8/22/07, Adrian aldebaer@googlemail.com wrote:
I'm sure this idea has already been kicked around, but why aren't there selective blocks, i.e. blocks restricted to one or more certain pages? I
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-July/078354.html
[snip]
If it later turned out that the user in question is generally intolerable, s/he could accordingly be fully blocked (as usual) to give them a stronger warning.
'Soft security' is a core idea behind a lot of our decisions.
If someone can't restrain themselves when we tell them they must behave or leave entirely then they are failing the most fundamental requirement for an acceptable participating member in a healthy free society, self-control.
Gregory Maxwell schrieb:
On 8/22/07, Adrian aldebaer@googlemail.com wrote:
I'm sure this idea has already been kicked around, but why aren't there selective blocks, i.e. blocks restricted to one or more certain pages? I
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-July/078354.html
[snip]
If it later turned out that the user in question is generally intolerable, s/he could accordingly be fully blocked (as usual) to give them a stronger warning.
'Soft security' is a core idea behind a lot of our decisions.
If someone can't restrain themselves when we tell them they must behave or leave entirely then they are failing the most fundamental requirement for an acceptable participating member in a healthy free society, self-control.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
But self control can be learned, taught, and encouraged by the system. Or the system can decide to simply show the door to misfits, deliberately ignoring the possibility that they may yet learn to become more constructive.
On 8/22/07, Adrian aldebaer@googlemail.com wrote:
Gregory Maxwell schrieb:
On 8/22/07, Adrian aldebaer@googlemail.com wrote:
I'm sure this idea has already been kicked around, but why aren't there selective blocks, i.e. blocks restricted to one or more certain pages? I
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-July/078354.html
[snip]
If it later turned out that the user in question is generally intolerable, s/he could accordingly be fully blocked (as usual) to give them a stronger warning.
'Soft security' is a core idea behind a lot of our decisions.
If someone can't restrain themselves when we tell them they must behave or leave entirely then they are failing the most fundamental requirement for an acceptable participating member in a healthy free society, self-control.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
But self control can be learned, taught, and encouraged by the system. Or the system can decide to simply show the door to misfits, deliberately ignoring the possibility that they may yet learn to become more constructive.
We do also have the problem with people who have sensitive hot button topics, but are otherwise reasonable. If we can keep them from touching those topics, they are harmless or useful contributors. If not...
On 22/08/07, Adrian aldebaer@googlemail.com wrote:
I'm sure this idea has already been kicked around, but why aren't there selective blocks, i.e. blocks restricted to one or more certain pages? I don't mean temporary bans on articles or article groups as occasionally imposed by the ArbCom, but a block-button block.
I started work on an extension to do exactly that (per-user whitelists and blacklists of pages and namespaces). For the most part, it does work, but because of the way the core code is written, it's very difficult to get it to work well. For example, at the moment I have it so it will tell you you're blocked, but it can't tell you why you're blocked because it assumes you've been blocked by the standard process and the block log isn't set right (I haven't looked into hacking the block log and trying to make it work anyway, I might at some point). The code would need to be rewritten with alternative block types in mind before they can work properly.