[WikiEN-l] Re: Per-article blocking

[Fastfission]

Yeah, I don't know. But that seems to fall into the more general
category of "people who won't discuss", of which there is no quick and
simple solution that I know of.

Yes yes, I could take a lot of time filling out an RfC. And then what?
Move it to another stage of mediation? I don't have time for that --
it's not how I want to spend my Wikipedia experience. It's probably
not how anybody wants to. And honestly, it's really not Wikipedia's
best use of ME -- I'm not a mediator by heart, I'm someone who wants
to add content by the truckloads and keep POV pushers out. But at the
same time I believe strongly in due process. So I don't know.

FF

On 6/23/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
> And then there's people who simply don't discuss if the page is
> protected on their preferred version. Quite problematic if you've got
> two of those. WHat do you protect it on then?
> 
> --Mgm
> 
> On 6/22/05, Fastfission <fastfission at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I think this sounds like a wonderful idea. I think a lot of edit wars
> > and revert wars could be stopped if pages were more quickly protected
> > and people were actually forced to try and work it out on talk
> > beforehand.
> >
> > The negative aspect -- that the page was being prevented from other,
> > legitimate edits -- is indeed quite negative, but no less so than if
> > it is in the middle of edit wars, which make preserving newly added
> > content near impossible.
> >
> > Is there a page for requesting protection? If there was some easy way
> > to do it, I'd do it all the time. I'd much rather discuss
> > disagreements on talk pages than change the articles, but most anons
> > and POV pushers seem unwilling to do that unless forced.
> >
> > FF
> >
> > On 6/22/05, Michael Snow <wikipedia at earthlink.net> wrote:
> > > JAY JG 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.
> > >
> > > The advantage is that it gives the antisocial more rope to hang
> > > themselves with, while simultaneously taking a lot of the sting out of
> > > being blocked, for those who aren't simply on Wikipedia to push an
> > > agenda. Yes, the battlefields may shift occasionally, but the process of
> > > building a case for arbitration against serious offenders can move much
> > > more rapidly. Then you won't have to wait as impatiently to get a
> > > sanction that lasts longer than 24 hours, in situations where this
> > > proves necessary.
> > >
> > > Back in the day when the three-revert rule was only a guideline, I
> > > brought an arbitration case against three of the most prolific revert
> > > warriors of the time. I think the arbitrators found the evidence
> > > persuasive in part because I could point to a long list of pages that
> > > had to be protected due to their revert wars. This is straightforward
> > > and a lot easier to deal with than wading through diffs to figure out
> > > who said what personal attack to whom. The same principle would apply to
> > > somebody who gets blocked from 10 different articles on closely related
> > > topics in short succession. With this kind of track record established,
> > > I'm confident that arbitration would quickly consider hearing such a case.
> > >
> > > --Michael Snow
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
>