[WikiEN-l] semi-stuff (was Re: New York Times article)

[Jimmy Wales]

Mark Gallagher wrote:
> We've all seen users completely blocked because of a regrettable 
> tendency to upload copyvios or create POV forks or move-war.  Now, they 
> could be otherwise intelligent people who think they know about 
> copyright law but don't; or useful contributors when they're being 
> supervised by other people on controversial articles, but who feel free 
> to let rip on their "own" fork articles; or people who insist on 
> treating the "move" button as a toy and causing unnecessary work for 
> admins and unnecessary stress for non-admins.  In that last case, Curps' 
> bot caught at least one offender, but that's hardly reliable.

It is unclear to me that there really are that many cases of people who
are extremely annoying in some areas, but whose help would be so
valuable in other areas.

> It would be nice to be able to prevent certain people from doing 
> obnoxious things without blocking them completely.  We shouldn't have to 
> block otherwise sane users because of a minor foible.

Perhaps.  But "being an idiot" is not normally a tendency which is
confined to easily identifiable areas of activity.

I am not totally opposed to the concept, but we have to think carefully.
 Every change to the tools gives rise to changes in the equilibria.
Will we have to sit through watching some troll be successively banned
from one action after another as people cry "Why prevent him from
editing articles about Chemotherapy? All he was doing was uploding
goatse to articles on homosexuality?  He might be a good user."

--Jimbo