Has there been any discussion in the past about implementing article specific (or category specific?) blocks as a way of enforcing topic bans? I'm thinking that an article may have a list or log of blocked editors, so that an editor can be blocked from a specific article without blocking them more generally or relying on their good faith to not violate topic bans. Any thoughts?
Nathan
2008/6/11 Nathan nawrich@gmail.com:
Has there been any discussion in the past about implementing article specific (or category specific?) blocks as a way of enforcing topic bans? I'm thinking that an article may have a list or log of blocked editors, so that an editor can be blocked from a specific article without blocking them more generally or relying on their good faith to not violate topic bans. Any thoughts?
Nathan https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Such a thing would be brilliant. Similarly, an option to block users from certain namespaces would be good as well. How about start a discussion on a village pump? It's certainly possible, afaik.
I'd oppose this.
If someone isn't able to voluntarily leave a topic alone, he or she shouldn't be welcome on the entire project. The idea of topic bans is rehabilitation not punishment. Topic bans are generally enacted to people who are well-intended (or so we assume per AGF) and very motivated in contributing to that topic in a manner that is not acceptable.
In addition, adding too much handicap to an account promotes sockpuppetry. We should be promoting honesty and mutual respect not cunning ways to avoid sanctions.
- White Cat
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 12:31 AM, Al Tally majorly.wiki@googlemail.com wrote:
2008/6/11 Nathan nawrich@gmail.com:
Has there been any discussion in the past about implementing article specific (or category specific?) blocks as a way of enforcing topic bans? I'm thinking that an article may have a list or log of blocked editors,
so
that an editor can be blocked from a specific article without blocking
them
more generally or relying on their good faith to not violate topic bans. Any thoughts?
Nathan https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Such a thing would be brilliant. Similarly, an option to block users from certain namespaces would be good as well. How about start a discussion on a village pump? It's certainly possible, afaik.
-- Al Tally (User:Majorly) _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 6/14/08, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
I'd oppose this.
If someone isn't able to voluntarily leave a topic alone, he or she shouldn't be welcome on the entire project. The idea of topic bans is rehabilitation not punishment. Topic bans are generally enacted to people who are well-intended (or so we assume per AGF) and very motivated in contributing to that topic in a manner that is not acceptable.
In addition, adding too much handicap to an account promotes sockpuppetry. We should be promoting honesty and mutual respect not cunning ways to avoid sanctions.
I agree with Cool Cat and Greg on this. It's the Garden of Eden metaphor all over again. Removing free will makes it impossible to evaluate judgment or know whether "rehabilitation" is a realistic goal.
—C.W.
Thats an interesting philosophical argument, but there is a reason most communities of human beings have a plethora of rules. Its indeed true that restrictions sometimes make it impossible to know what someone might do in complete freedom - but so what? I don't care what they "might do" in a state of nature, I care about what they "will do" on Wikipedia. If we have a mechanism for enforcing topic bans we have no need of knowing whether someone would otherwise violate the ban. We don't want them to violate the bans so we can drop a hammer - they have an end other than as a game of chicken.
Nathan
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 9:53 AM, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/14/08, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
I'd oppose this.
If someone isn't able to voluntarily leave a topic alone, he or she shouldn't be welcome on the entire project. The idea of topic bans is rehabilitation not punishment. Topic bans are generally enacted to people who are well-intended (or so we assume per AGF) and very motivated in contributing to that topic in a manner that is not acceptable.
In addition, adding too much handicap to an account promotes
sockpuppetry.
We should be promoting honesty and mutual respect not cunning ways to
avoid
sanctions.
I agree with Cool Cat and Greg on this. It's the Garden of Eden metaphor all over again. Removing free will makes it impossible to evaluate judgment or know whether "rehabilitation" is a realistic goal.
—C.W.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 6/18/08, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Thats an interesting philosophical argument, but there is a reason most communities of human beings have a plethora of rules. Its indeed true that restrictions sometimes make it impossible to know what someone might do in complete freedom - but so what? I don't care what they "might do" in a state of nature, I care about what they "will do" on Wikipedia. If we have a mechanism for enforcing topic bans we have no need of knowing whether someone would otherwise violate the ban. We don't want them to violate the bans so we can drop a hammer - they have an end other than as a game of chicken.
Whatever kind of vehicle you drive, if you play chicken with a pedestrian you will lose nine times out of ten, because you know that they know that you won't hit them. There is nothing which physically preventing you from doing so, only the basic premise that you couldn't be that stupid. Unless of course you are, in which case you shouldn't be driving at all.
(At the peril of allowing this thread to degenerate into Bad Sci-Fi), if the car were equipped with some sort of electronic "pedestrian detector" which caused you to swerve, this would (to the pedestrian) be indistinguishable from a conscious decision to avoid making road-kill. Once again, anyone relying on such a feature shouldn't be driving at all.
—C.W.
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 5:20 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Has there been any discussion in the past about implementing article specific (or category specific?) blocks as a way of enforcing topic bans? I'm thinking that an article may have a list or log of blocked editors, so that an editor can be blocked from a specific article without blocking them more generally or relying on their good faith to not violate topic bans. Any thoughts?
I think Andrew Garrett considered working on such an extension at one time and I'm pretty sure there are other extensions that might fulfill this wish. It would certainly be useful, just think of how many Arbitration cases end with something about keeping editors away from certain topics/articles. :-)
Another thought would be the ability to block editors from a protected category - such as categories created through an Arbitration case to include a set of articles associated with major conflicts (like IP, for instance). A protected category block could also include sets of articles on a general probation, like the one for homeopathy.
Its listed at WP:VPP.
Nathan
Nathan wrote:
Has there been any discussion in the past about implementing article specific (or category specific?) blocks as a way of enforcing topic bans? I'm thinking that an article may have a list or log of blocked editors, so that an editor can be blocked from a specific article without blocking them more generally or relying on their good faith to not violate topic bans. Any thoughts?
I don't see a problem with the current system really. The remedy for someone violating a topic ban is to just ban them entirely, which is a good way of separating out the good-faith editors who are simply problematic in certain areas (but will respect a topic-ban) from those whose good faith we cannot rely upon, who should just be banned entirely.
-Mark
It really has to go by topic, not article, for full effectiveness, so probably human enforcement is unavoidable. But being able to do it by article as an alternative or supplement would a/ serve as a reminder & b/add a degree of impersonality to enforcement which may be a help sometimes
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 6:22 PM, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
Nathan wrote:
Has there been any discussion in the past about implementing article specific (or category specific?) blocks as a way of enforcing topic bans? I'm thinking that an article may have a list or log of blocked editors, so that an editor can be blocked from a specific article without blocking them more generally or relying on their good faith to not violate topic bans. Any thoughts?
I don't see a problem with the current system really. The remedy for someone violating a topic ban is to just ban them entirely, which is a good way of separating out the good-faith editors who are simply problematic in certain areas (but will respect a topic-ban) from those whose good faith we cannot rely upon, who should just be banned entirely.
-Mark
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 6:22 PM, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
I don't see a problem with the current system really. The remedy for someone violating a topic ban is to just ban them entirely, which is a good way of separating out the good-faith editors who are simply problematic in certain areas (but will respect a topic-ban) from those whose good faith we cannot rely upon, who should just be banned entirely.
+1
If you can't obey a topic ban then you really have no business being on the site at all.
Furthermore, a technical measure would just encourage lawyering: "Of course I can edit the they section on X in Y, I'm only banned from articles in Category:X" or "I'm only banned from X not list of X in popular culture!" "I didn't edit the ...article... I merely edited a template it includes..." ...
It might also be worth nothing that software features for similar behavior (upload blocking) have previously been rejected based on the same "if they can't behave, ban them!" logic.
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 5:20 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Has there been any discussion in the past about implementing article specific (or category specific?) blocks as a way of enforcing topic bans? I'm thinking that an article may have a list or log of blocked editors, so that an editor can be blocked from a specific article without blocking them more generally or relying on their good faith to not violate topic bans. Any thoughts?
Article specific is fine IMO. Category specific is problematic. I'm sure plenty of sneaky vandals could add unrelated pages to such categories and in effect block those users from editing them. Putting what amounts to admin rights (even if it is over only a handful of people) in the hands of anonymous editors is not wise.
Yeah, that would be problematic. It seems like you could define the category in another way - perhaps in a way similar to the way SALT pages worked, by adding the wikilink to the page.
Nathan
2008/6/12 Chris Howie cdhowie@gmail.com:
Article specific is fine IMO. Category specific is problematic. I'm sure plenty of sneaky vandals could add unrelated pages to such categories and in effect block those users from editing them. Putting what amounts to admin rights (even if it is over only a handful of people) in the hands of anonymous editors is not wise.
On a related subject, the fact that categories don't allow you to monitor the articles that are in them in your watchlist is incredibly broken. It seems to me if I watch a category and somebody adds or takes away from it, I should know about it.
-- Chris Howie
2008/6/12 Ian Woollard ian.woollard@gmail.com:
On a related subject, the fact that categories don't allow you to monitor the articles that are in them in your watchlist is incredibly broken. It seems to me if I watch a category and somebody adds or takes away from it, I should know about it.
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7148
- d.
Ian Woollard wrote:
On a related subject, the fact that categories don't allow you to monitor the articles that are in them in your watchlist is incredibly broken. It seems to me if I watch a category and somebody adds or takes away from it, I should know about it.
I'd disagree with that. I have lots of categories in my watchlist at the moment, because I want to know when the explanatory text is edited or when the category is recategorized with respect to its parent categories---I'm watching the category itself, not its contents. Since some of these categories are extremely large, I definitely *don't* want a notification every single time an article is added to or removed from one, since that would be so frequent as to swamp any edits to the category itself. At the very least this should be a different type of category-watching so I can opt out of it and keep the current behavior.
-Mark