The Cunctator wrote:
No, seriously,
Oh, how boring ;-)
how about not blocking?
IMHO "don't block at all" won't work, but neither does "block everything at once", as we've seen.
If you try to think of solutions to our problems that don't involve blocking, the solutions are generally much cleaner.
For example,
- more powerful ways of searching and sorting edits,
We now have the "top" mark at user contributions, so we can see which edits haven't been reverted yet. What else could we use? I already suggested marking IP contributions on Recent Changes in red (or bold or...) for logged-in users, but was turned down as being "unfair" to the good contributors, which *are* the majority.
- more powerful ways of rolling back edits
How about a link on the user contributions, for sysops only probably, to undo all "top" contributions of this user?
- Bayesian filtering of contributions
That would be similar to the automatic "quality rating" I suggested earlier. Characteristics could include: * removal of large parts of the text * insertion of repetetetetitive sequences * insertion of certain keywords ("f**k") * insertion of off-site links (?) Suspicious edits could be highlighted on the Recent Changes page.
Magnus