JAY JG wrote:
For how long would these individual article blocks remain?
Just like current user blocks, the duration can be set by the blocker/admin. I would assume that a 24 hour block for a 3RR violation could for just the article in question, not for the entire Wikipedia.
I fail to see the advantage then; they would likely just move on to revert-warring on some other article, and then return to the original after 24 hours.
The advantage is that it gives the antisocial more rope to hang themselves with, while simultaneously taking a lot of the sting out of being blocked, for those who aren't simply on Wikipedia to push an agenda. Yes, the battlefields may shift occasionally, but the process of building a case for arbitration against serious offenders can move much more rapidly. Then you won't have to wait as impatiently to get a sanction that lasts longer than 24 hours, in situations where this proves necessary.
Back in the day when the three-revert rule was only a guideline, I brought an arbitration case against three of the most prolific revert warriors of the time. I think the arbitrators found the evidence persuasive in part because I could point to a long list of pages that had to be protected due to their revert wars. This is straightforward and a lot easier to deal with than wading through diffs to figure out who said what personal attack to whom. The same principle would apply to somebody who gets blocked from 10 different articles on closely related topics in short succession. With this kind of track record established, I'm confident that arbitration would quickly consider hearing such a case.
--Michael Snow
I think this sounds like a wonderful idea. I think a lot of edit wars and revert wars could be stopped if pages were more quickly protected and people were actually forced to try and work it out on talk beforehand.
The negative aspect -- that the page was being prevented from other, legitimate edits -- is indeed quite negative, but no less so than if it is in the middle of edit wars, which make preserving newly added content near impossible.
Is there a page for requesting protection? If there was some easy way to do it, I'd do it all the time. I'd much rather discuss disagreements on talk pages than change the articles, but most anons and POV pushers seem unwilling to do that unless forced.
FF
On 6/22/05, Michael Snow wikipedia@earthlink.net wrote:
JAY JG wrote:
For how long would these individual article blocks remain?
Just like current user blocks, the duration can be set by the blocker/admin. I would assume that a 24 hour block for a 3RR violation could for just the article in question, not for the entire Wikipedia.
I fail to see the advantage then; they would likely just move on to revert-warring on some other article, and then return to the original after 24 hours.
The advantage is that it gives the antisocial more rope to hang themselves with, while simultaneously taking a lot of the sting out of being blocked, for those who aren't simply on Wikipedia to push an agenda. Yes, the battlefields may shift occasionally, but the process of building a case for arbitration against serious offenders can move much more rapidly. Then you won't have to wait as impatiently to get a sanction that lasts longer than 24 hours, in situations where this proves necessary.
Back in the day when the three-revert rule was only a guideline, I brought an arbitration case against three of the most prolific revert warriors of the time. I think the arbitrators found the evidence persuasive in part because I could point to a long list of pages that had to be protected due to their revert wars. This is straightforward and a lot easier to deal with than wading through diffs to figure out who said what personal attack to whom. The same principle would apply to somebody who gets blocked from 10 different articles on closely related topics in short succession. With this kind of track record established, I'm confident that arbitration would quickly consider hearing such a case.
--Michael Snow _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Fastfission, have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection
Dan
On 22/06/05, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
Is there a page for requesting protection? If there was some easy way to do it, I'd do it all the time. I'd much rather discuss disagreements on talk pages than change the articles, but most anons and POV pushers seem unwilling to do that unless forced.
FF
And then there's people who simply don't discuss if the page is protected on their preferred version. Quite problematic if you've got two of those. WHat do you protect it on then?
--Mgm
On 6/22/05, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
I think this sounds like a wonderful idea. I think a lot of edit wars and revert wars could be stopped if pages were more quickly protected and people were actually forced to try and work it out on talk beforehand.
The negative aspect -- that the page was being prevented from other, legitimate edits -- is indeed quite negative, but no less so than if it is in the middle of edit wars, which make preserving newly added content near impossible.
Is there a page for requesting protection? If there was some easy way to do it, I'd do it all the time. I'd much rather discuss disagreements on talk pages than change the articles, but most anons and POV pushers seem unwilling to do that unless forced.
FF
On 6/22/05, Michael Snow wikipedia@earthlink.net wrote:
JAY JG wrote:
For how long would these individual article blocks remain?
Just like current user blocks, the duration can be set by the blocker/admin. I would assume that a 24 hour block for a 3RR violation could for just the article in question, not for the entire Wikipedia.
I fail to see the advantage then; they would likely just move on to revert-warring on some other article, and then return to the original after 24 hours.
The advantage is that it gives the antisocial more rope to hang themselves with, while simultaneously taking a lot of the sting out of being blocked, for those who aren't simply on Wikipedia to push an agenda. Yes, the battlefields may shift occasionally, but the process of building a case for arbitration against serious offenders can move much more rapidly. Then you won't have to wait as impatiently to get a sanction that lasts longer than 24 hours, in situations where this proves necessary.
Back in the day when the three-revert rule was only a guideline, I brought an arbitration case against three of the most prolific revert warriors of the time. I think the arbitrators found the evidence persuasive in part because I could point to a long list of pages that had to be protected due to their revert wars. This is straightforward and a lot easier to deal with than wading through diffs to figure out who said what personal attack to whom. The same principle would apply to somebody who gets blocked from 10 different articles on closely related topics in short succession. With this kind of track record established, I'm confident that arbitration would quickly consider hearing such a case.
--Michael Snow _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 6/23/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
And then there's people who simply don't discuss if the page is protected on their preferred version. Quite problematic if you've got two of those. WHat do you protect it on then?
Protect a blanked page with only a message stating that there is a dispute (similar to {{twoversions}}). I think nl does that.
Kelly
On 6/23/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
And then there's people who simply don't discuss if the page is protected on their preferred version. Quite problematic if you've got two of those. WHat do you protect it on then?
--Mgm
Well, here's one proposal:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Protection_policy#Blanking_befor...
(I do like the idea of per-article blocking, as well.)
-Kat [[User:Mindspillage]]
Yeah, I don't know. But that seems to fall into the more general category of "people who won't discuss", of which there is no quick and simple solution that I know of.
Yes yes, I could take a lot of time filling out an RfC. And then what? Move it to another stage of mediation? I don't have time for that -- it's not how I want to spend my Wikipedia experience. It's probably not how anybody wants to. And honestly, it's really not Wikipedia's best use of ME -- I'm not a mediator by heart, I'm someone who wants to add content by the truckloads and keep POV pushers out. But at the same time I believe strongly in due process. So I don't know.
FF
On 6/23/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
And then there's people who simply don't discuss if the page is protected on their preferred version. Quite problematic if you've got two of those. WHat do you protect it on then?
--Mgm
On 6/22/05, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
I think this sounds like a wonderful idea. I think a lot of edit wars and revert wars could be stopped if pages were more quickly protected and people were actually forced to try and work it out on talk beforehand.
The negative aspect -- that the page was being prevented from other, legitimate edits -- is indeed quite negative, but no less so than if it is in the middle of edit wars, which make preserving newly added content near impossible.
Is there a page for requesting protection? If there was some easy way to do it, I'd do it all the time. I'd much rather discuss disagreements on talk pages than change the articles, but most anons and POV pushers seem unwilling to do that unless forced.
FF
On 6/22/05, Michael Snow wikipedia@earthlink.net wrote:
JAY JG wrote:
For how long would these individual article blocks remain?
Just like current user blocks, the duration can be set by the blocker/admin. I would assume that a 24 hour block for a 3RR violation could for just the article in question, not for the entire Wikipedia.
I fail to see the advantage then; they would likely just move on to revert-warring on some other article, and then return to the original after 24 hours.
The advantage is that it gives the antisocial more rope to hang themselves with, while simultaneously taking a lot of the sting out of being blocked, for those who aren't simply on Wikipedia to push an agenda. Yes, the battlefields may shift occasionally, but the process of building a case for arbitration against serious offenders can move much more rapidly. Then you won't have to wait as impatiently to get a sanction that lasts longer than 24 hours, in situations where this proves necessary.
Back in the day when the three-revert rule was only a guideline, I brought an arbitration case against three of the most prolific revert warriors of the time. I think the arbitrators found the evidence persuasive in part because I could point to a long list of pages that had to be protected due to their revert wars. This is straightforward and a lot easier to deal with than wading through diffs to figure out who said what personal attack to whom. The same principle would apply to somebody who gets blocked from 10 different articles on closely related topics in short succession. With this kind of track record established, I'm confident that arbitration would quickly consider hearing such a case.
--Michael Snow _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Blanking doesn't seem very helpful at all when the page needs to be protected. All you need to do is make up a fuss between enough users and you can disrupt wikipedia until there's no tomorrow. Besides, no one can edit a blanked article into something else the parties might accept.
--Mgm
On 6/23/05, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
Yeah, I don't know. But that seems to fall into the more general category of "people who won't discuss", of which there is no quick and simple solution that I know of.
Yes yes, I could take a lot of time filling out an RfC. And then what? Move it to another stage of mediation? I don't have time for that -- it's not how I want to spend my Wikipedia experience. It's probably not how anybody wants to. And honestly, it's really not Wikipedia's best use of ME -- I'm not a mediator by heart, I'm someone who wants to add content by the truckloads and keep POV pushers out. But at the same time I believe strongly in due process. So I don't know.
FF
On 6/23/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
And then there's people who simply don't discuss if the page is protected on their preferred version. Quite problematic if you've got two of those. WHat do you protect it on then?
--Mgm
On 6/22/05, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
I think this sounds like a wonderful idea. I think a lot of edit wars and revert wars could be stopped if pages were more quickly protected and people were actually forced to try and work it out on talk beforehand.
The negative aspect -- that the page was being prevented from other, legitimate edits -- is indeed quite negative, but no less so than if it is in the middle of edit wars, which make preserving newly added content near impossible.
Is there a page for requesting protection? If there was some easy way to do it, I'd do it all the time. I'd much rather discuss disagreements on talk pages than change the articles, but most anons and POV pushers seem unwilling to do that unless forced.
FF
On 6/22/05, Michael Snow wikipedia@earthlink.net wrote:
JAY JG wrote:
> For how long would these individual article blocks remain?
Just like current user blocks, the duration can be set by the blocker/admin. I would assume that a 24 hour block for a 3RR violation could for just the article in question, not for the entire Wikipedia.
I fail to see the advantage then; they would likely just move on to revert-warring on some other article, and then return to the original after 24 hours.
The advantage is that it gives the antisocial more rope to hang themselves with, while simultaneously taking a lot of the sting out of being blocked, for those who aren't simply on Wikipedia to push an agenda. Yes, the battlefields may shift occasionally, but the process of building a case for arbitration against serious offenders can move much more rapidly. Then you won't have to wait as impatiently to get a sanction that lasts longer than 24 hours, in situations where this proves necessary.
Back in the day when the three-revert rule was only a guideline, I brought an arbitration case against three of the most prolific revert warriors of the time. I think the arbitrators found the evidence persuasive in part because I could point to a long list of pages that had to be protected due to their revert wars. This is straightforward and a lot easier to deal with than wading through diffs to figure out who said what personal attack to whom. The same principle would apply to somebody who gets blocked from 10 different articles on closely related topics in short succession. With this kind of track record established, I'm confident that arbitration would quickly consider hearing such a case.
--Michael Snow _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 6/23/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
Blanking doesn't seem very helpful at all when the page needs to be protected. All you need to do is make up a fuss between enough users and you can disrupt wikipedia until there's no tomorrow. Besides, no one can edit a blanked article into something else the parties might accept.
Obviously good sense is applied to determine if someone is just trying to create a disruption to cause a blanking, such a judgement is already used for protection.
And protected pages shouldn't be edited, blank or not. Of course the history is available, and the discussion can take place on the talk page... where all sides will be encouraged to participate because their preferred version is not on top. :)