Sorry to keep changing subject headings, but there thread are tough to follow.
Professer Lih wrote:
I would like to see article protection as a preferred first step before blocking someone over 3RR. The 3RR would be better if it required this. And as much as people say, "It's just a 24 hour ban, get over it," most would consider it a stain on their reputation within the community if they were blocked. As we can see from the RfA votes, these things do get dredged up.
What about reviving the idea of blocking a user from editing a particular article? If someone blocked me from editing one of the gitmo articles for a couple of days, I'd "get the message" and I wouldn't feel the need for a dramatic exit.
As a matter of fact, I'm blocked right now - but only by virtue of voluntarily following the advice of Ta Bu Shi. (Technically, I'm not blocked, but I'm avoiding the page as he suggested.)
This would be great for newbies, especially the "unsigned-in" at libraries and school. It's a big shock to be blocked from all edits. You can't even say "sorry" on a talk page! But being blocked from editing Elvis Presley for one hour - while you can TALK ABOUT YOUR EDITS on the talk page - would be great.
I bet our team of programmers have already written the code for this feature. How about it, Tim Starling? Can you and Magnus and Brion provide something like this?
Uncle Ed
I also think this is an excellent idea
Jack (Sam Spade)
On 6/21/05, Poor, Edmund W Edmund.W.Poor@abc.com wrote:
Sorry to keep changing subject headings, but there thread are tough to follow.
Professer Lih wrote:
I would like to see article protection as a preferred first step before blocking someone over 3RR. The 3RR would be better if it required this. And as much as people say, "It's just a 24 hour ban, get over it," most would consider it a stain on their reputation within the community if they were blocked. As we can see from the RfA votes, these things do get dredged up.
What about reviving the idea of blocking a user from editing a particular article? If someone blocked me from editing one of the gitmo articles for a couple of days, I'd "get the message" and I wouldn't feel the need for a dramatic exit.
As a matter of fact, I'm blocked right now - but only by virtue of voluntarily following the advice of Ta Bu Shi. (Technically, I'm not blocked, but I'm avoiding the page as he suggested.)
This would be great for newbies, especially the "unsigned-in" at libraries and school. It's a big shock to be blocked from all edits. You can't even say "sorry" on a talk page! But being blocked from editing Elvis Presley for one hour - while you can TALK ABOUT YOUR EDITS on the talk page - would be great.
I bet our team of programmers have already written the code for this feature. How about it, Tim Starling? Can you and Magnus and Brion provide something like this?
Uncle Ed _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Poor, Edmund W wrote:
What about reviving the idea of blocking a user from editing a particular article? If someone blocked me from editing one of the gitmo articles for a couple of days, I'd "get the message" and I wouldn't feel the need for a dramatic exit.
Are there any objections to this? I'm accustomed to all blocking-related features being controversial, but this one seems to be unusually well-supported.
-- Tim Starling
Tim Starling (t.starling@physics.unimelb.edu.au) [050622 10:39]:
Are there any objections to this? I'm accustomed to all blocking-related features being controversial, but this one seems to be unusually well-supported.
It would certainly make 3RR blocks much less controversial.
Mind you, I'm now trying to think of possible social side effects.
- d.
On 22/06/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
Tim Starling (t.starling@physics.unimelb.edu.au) [050622 10:39]:
Are there any objections to this? I'm accustomed to all blocking-related features being controversial, but this one seems to be unusually well-supported.
It would certainly make 3RR blocks much less controversial.
Mind you, I'm now trying to think of possible social side effects.
There's really not much to object to about it; you're not giving admins a more powerful tool, you're giving them a more nuanced one. It allows blockings for vandalism ("we don't trust you to edit wiki at all") to be differentiated from blockings related to a specific article ("we think you should go cool off somewhere else"), and as such is less likely to cause someone to react angrily to a block.
It also removes a lot of the tensions you get from page protection - I've seen, as I recall, one massive fight because a protected page was briefly unprotected so someone could (gasp!) re-format the list of references, which was clearly a massive misuse of admin powers, condoning of vandalism, what have you - because in many cases the page wouldn't be protected generally, but the two or three warring editors blocked from editing it. It'd remain otherwise open - though presumably closely watched with an eye to blocking/protection for "unrelated" edits.
On the other hand, once you have this in place, a general block becomes a much more significant thing - there's your negative social effect. A short "article block" is one thing, but to block them from editing *anywhere*! Massive abuse of power! Disproportionate response! &c. So that's an effect; whether it's positive or negative is arguable.
On 6/21/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
It would certainly make 3RR blocks much less controversial. Mind you, I'm now trying to think of possible social side effects.
It would be a nice tool, but it I suspect it would make 3RR ineffective: We can't give people time to cool off if we're only telling them they must take their war to another page. The idea behind 3RR is to have some time to cool off and for many users that means taking a walk away from Wikipedia.
If we do set this up we should also make sure that it quietly places a simmlar block on the IP.
On 6/22/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
Tim Starling (t.starling@physics.unimelb.edu.au) [050622 10:39]:
Are there any objections to this? I'm accustomed to all blocking-related features being controversial, but this one seems to be unusually well-supported.
It would certainly make 3RR blocks much less controversial. Mind you, I'm now trying to think of possible social side effects.
Making 3RR blocks more fine grained could avoid lots of bad blood.
Some possible side effects: - Shunting "angst" to other related articles, though probably not significant - Management interface for the access control list for (# of articles) x (# of users) - An article level block would probably be less stigmatized, so possibility of more blocks happening
-User:Fuzheado
On 6/21/05, Andrew Lih andrew.lih@gmail.com wrote:
- An article level block would probably be less stigmatized, so
possibility of more blocks happening
This is a good reason against their use... all blocks no matter how small or how deserved are something of a slap... To a normal editor it's a reminder that there is some more powerful force that will take away your ability to edit if you run afoul of them and you can't figure out a way to evade the block. ... They will make people want to lash back, and if they have no means to block someone themselves some will find another way to hurt back.
Blocks are bad energy, they are needed and we should not be afraid to use them where they are required, but we don't want to create the image that any sort of block is harmless.
On 6/22/05, Tim Starling t.starling@physics.unimelb.edu.au wrote:
Poor, Edmund W wrote:
What about reviving the idea of blocking a user from editing a particular article? If someone blocked me from editing one of the gitmo articles for a couple of days, I'd "get the message" and I wouldn't feel the need for a dramatic exit.
Are there any objections to this? I'm accustomed to all blocking-related features being controversial, but this one seems to be unusually well-supported.
-- Tim Starling
It would be hand If you want a shared ip to stop doing something.
On 6/21/05, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
It would be hand If you want a shared ip to stop doing something.
Oh, thats probably worth it alone.. though, it won't help the random drive by vandals, because they'll just as happily go on editing some other page.
From: Tim Starling t.starling@physics.unimelb.edu.au
Poor, Edmund W wrote:
What about reviving the idea of blocking a user from editing a particular article? If someone blocked me from editing one of the gitmo articles for a couple of days, I'd "get the message" and I wouldn't feel the need for a dramatic exit.
Are there any objections to this? I'm accustomed to all blocking-related features being controversial, but this one seems to be unusually well-supported.
-- Tim Starling
In my experience, when this kind of person is blocked from editing one article (e.g. via page protection), he or she typically moves on to start edit warring on a related article. A good example is one of the people currently being proposed for RfAR, who has managed to get perhaps 10 articles protected so far, one after another, returning to the originals for further revert warring when they are unprotected again.
Jay.
JAY JG wrote:
In my experience, when this kind of person is blocked from editing one article (e.g. via page protection), he or she typically moves on to start edit warring on a related article. A good example is one of the people currently being proposed for RfAR, who has managed to get perhaps 10 articles protected so far, one after another, returning to the originals for further revert warring when they are unprotected again.
Well, the feature I have in mind would allow the user to be blocked from an arbitrary list of articles. In the scenario you refer to, the effect would be the same for the badly behaving user, they would continue to move from article to article. The difference is that other editors would still be able to edit the articles left behind. Since the collateral damage is lower, action could be taken sooner, and the bad user would run out of related articles to edit more quickly.
-- Tim Starling
Or alternatively, they could just be blocked from Wikipedia. I take it this would not need to be used in all cases. :)
-- ambi
On 6/22/05, Tim Starling t.starling@physics.unimelb.edu.au wrote:
JAY JG wrote:
In my experience, when this kind of person is blocked from editing one article (e.g. via page protection), he or she typically moves on to start edit warring on a related article. A good example is one of the people currently being proposed for RfAR, who has managed to get perhaps 10 articles protected so far, one after another, returning to the originals for further revert warring when they are unprotected again.
Well, the feature I have in mind would allow the user to be blocked from an arbitrary list of articles. In the scenario you refer to, the effect would be the same for the badly behaving user, they would continue to move from article to article. The difference is that other editors would still be able to edit the articles left behind. Since the collateral damage is lower, action could be taken sooner, and the bad user would run out of related articles to edit more quickly.
-- Tim Starling
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
From: Tim Starling t.starling@physics.unimelb.edu.au
JAY JG wrote:
In my experience, when this kind of person is blocked from editing one article (e.g. via page protection), he or she typically moves on to start edit warring on a related article. A good example is one of the people currently being proposed for RfAR, who has managed to get perhaps 10 articles protected so far, one after another, returning to the originals for further revert warring when they are unprotected again.
Well, the feature I have in mind would allow the user to be blocked from an arbitrary list of articles. In the scenario you refer to, the effect would be the same for the badly behaving user, they would continue to move from article to article. The difference is that other editors would still be able to edit the articles left behind. Since the collateral damage is lower, action could be taken sooner, and the bad user would run out of related articles to edit more quickly.
For how long would these individual article blocks remain?
Jay.
On 6/22/05, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com 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.
-User:Fuzheado
On 6/22/05, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com 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.
Jay.
On 6/22/05, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
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.
Then perhaps the 9RR (or 3 x 3RR) rule will result in a ban from all editing. :)
A persistent "reverter" on one article will have to wait 24 hours, but he'll be facing a legion of admins ready to hit the block button again. It is highly likely the invidivudal will run out of patience first.
-User:Fuzheado
I think Tim's idea would be an excellent feature. IMO, the pros greatly outweigh the cons.
We could at least trial it.
Dan