Tony Sidaway wrote
I dispute any suggestion that protection of a page is in any way *less* drastic than blocking a user. If a page is protected, *nobody* can edit it. If one or two over-enthusiastic revert warriors are blocked for up to a day, only their potential edits are lost--and since they're likely to be holding up editing by their reverts, their loss is often a very good thing.
Charles Matthews wrote:
That omits the edits to other pages blocked users cannot make.
Page protection is unpopular; temp-banning 3RR violaters seems to have a good consensus behind it. This displays a rational attitude to the content of the page in question, I think. Edit warring usually stops the development of a page right in its tracks, often for the sake of a part of the whole that is not that significant.
Well of course page protection is unpopular and banning has a "good consensus'--page protection affects *me* but banning affects *them*. :)
But consider that page protection can be short--just long enough, if the participants calm down, for the admin to look at the situation and put a few choice comments and suggestions on the article talk, and see if he s/he can get some feedback as to how to proceed. Yes, this is some work for the admin, but the admin cannot take a step like that and walk away. In fact, one admin who did that (among other things) was de-admined. With the 3RR block, the admin is walking away: the "winning" side is satisfied, and the "loser" stews in his/her juices for 24 hours. This is easy but doesn't contribute to Wikipedia, the community, or the encyclopedia.
--C
Jim Cecropia said:
Well of course page protection is unpopular and banning has a "good consensus'--page protection affects *me* but banning affects *them*. :)
Precisely. It's like the speed limit. Only unrestrained editors ever whine about it.>
But consider that page protection can be short--just long enough, if the participants calm down, for the admin to look at the situation and put a few choice comments and suggestions on the article talk, and see if he s/he can get some feedback as to how to proceed. Yes, this is some work for the admin, but the admin cannot take a step like that and walk away. In fact, one admin who did that (among other things) was de-admined. With the 3RR block, the admin is walking away: the "winning" side is satisfied, and the "loser" stews in his/her juices for 24 hours. This is easy but doesn't contribute to Wikipedia, the community, or the encyclopedia.
You're expecting far too much from administrators. We're editors, not fairy godmothers. I should bloody well hope that the "loser" stews. That's what the 3RR is for. Learn to play nice or stew. How hard is it for a bright editor to work out what side of that equation he wants to be on?
Tony Sidaway wrote:
You're expecting far too much from administrators. We're editors, not fairy godmothers. I should bloody well hope that the "loser" stews. That's what the 3RR is for. Learn to play nice or stew. How hard is it
Or, in this case, learn to construct a false case for a block and laugh while your victim stews.
for a bright editor to work out what side of that equation he wants to be on?
How hard is it for an admin to warn a talk page that users have been recommended for blocking and give them a chance to address the accusations directly?
--Blair