On 7/29/05, Haukur Þorgeirsson <haukurth(a)hi.is> wrote:
That sounds ok
to me, but, I think the user should be pointed to
relevant policies on the first warning also. I don't like the view
source part though, sounds a little evil. I don't feel it would do
much other then discourage the person from editing. er even make them
think it's a bug in the software and go report it.
Seconded. Actually I think the whole idea of
automatically resetting the ban if the user
"attempts" to edit is silly. "Ooh! You thought
you were going to be clever and edit even though
we've told you you can't? Let's see who has the
last laugh, sucker!"
Resetting a block shouldn't happen automatically. If the editor is
logged in, then he knows he can't edit. If not logged in, then yeah,
it might be an attempt to edit anonymously, but it might be an IP
address shared with others. This needs a human eye cast over it.
Secondly, it is far too easy to "attempt to edit". Sometimes the hand
clicks the mouse before the brain thinks "Shoot, that's something I
shouldn't do now". Clicking on a red link is also seen as "an attempt
to edit". And sometimes you hit the "edit" tab when aiming for the
"history" tab.
This is poor design, if it isn't an outright bug. It's like
withdrawing money from an autoteller. Get the PIN wrong once and it
swallows your card without giving you a second chance. Enter $1000
when you meant to take out $100, and it cancels your card if there's
only $500 in the account.
Both can be seen as obvious attempts at fraud. Punish the bastards!
--
Peter in Canberra