[WikiEN-l] Blocking proposal

[Fl Celloguy]

Personally, I think the new blocking policy 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blocking_policy_proposal) will do 
more more harm than good. The proposal would indubitably mean the blocking 
(using this logged-in only registration) of most AOL IPs, Netscape IPs, 
school districts, public-use computers, and major corporations. By only 
allowing logged-in users on these IPs (since it is inevitable that all of 
them would either be blocked indefinitely or blocked consistently), in my 
opinion, is against the spirit of the Wiki - we're here to allow *anyone* to 
edit, not just those who want to create accounts. I believe that not 
allowing any anonymous editing has already been extensively discussed at the 
Village Pump, and soundly rejected. This blocking policy proposal would take 
us one step closer to not allowing any anonymous editing - AOL, school 
districts, and public-use computers comprise a large amount of our editing, 
and many are valuable editors and contributors that we may lose if this 
policy is implemented.

In addition, I also think that this policy will actually increase vandalism. 
Currently, if someone is blocked on a static IP address, s/he cannot log-in 
or register and continue the vandalism - however, under this policy, the 
vandal can simply create more and more accounts without limits. While there 
has been some discussion regarding restricting the creation of accounts 
under these blocked IPs, I still feel that this idea would encourage 
vandalism. The measures currently being discussed are email validation, 
captchas (the funny looking boxes that you have to type in the code for), 
and a one account creation per hour limit if blocked. The email idea also 
goes against the fundamental principle of the wiki, and of Wikipedia - 
anyone should be able to edit or register. I know I personally wouldn't have 
registered and started contributing here if an email address is required. 
Regarding captchas - this also would prove ineffective, since the vast 
majority of vandalism is not automated, but done by persistant vandals. 
Finally, the one-hour account-creation would also have a *huge* detrimental 
effect - imagine if AOL IPs were restricted to only one new account per 
hour. While there are multiple AOL IP addresses, because most would 
indubitably have been blocked under this new block, it would be highly 
difficult - and frustrating - to create an account on all those major IP 
providers and public-use computers. Are we to willingly shun away hundreds 
of potential contributers in the hope that vandals will not be determined 
enough to create more accounts?

While I understand the feelings of those who have AOL or use these IPs and 
are inadvertantly prohibited from editing, I feel that there is too much 
loss in this new blocking policy. Instead, we should just attempt to keep 
blocks on these IP ranges at a minimal, considering that AOL IPs often 
change with every page load. This new policy would not only fail to 
effectively stop vandalism, but would also contradict our very principles - 
that anyone can edit Wikipedia. We should not discriminate against anyone 
willing to participage just because s/he is on AOL.

Thus, it is my humble opinion that this new blocking policy would be highly 
detrimental to Wikipedia. As always, I'm seeking your opinions on this 
matter, and I urge everyone, regardless of whether you agree with me or not, 
to give your opinion at [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy proposal]]. Many thanks.

Regards,

Flcelloguy
>From Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia.

_________________________________________________________________
On the road to retirement? Check out MSN Life Events for advice on how to 
get there! http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=Retirement