On 22/06/05, David Gerard <fun(a)thingy.apana.org.au> wrote: There's really not much to object to about it; you're not giving admins a more powerful tool, you're giving them a more nuanced one. It allows blockings for vandalism ("we don't trust you to edit wiki at all") to be differentiated from blockings related to a specific article ("we think you should go cool off somewhere else"), and as such is less likely to cause someone to react angrily to a block. It also removes a lot of the tensions you get from page protection - I've seen, as I recall, one massive fight because a protected page was briefly unprotected so someone could (gasp!) re-format the list of references, which was clearly a massive misuse of admin powers, condoning of vandalism, what have you - because in many cases the page wouldn't be protected generally, but the two or three warring editors blocked from editing it. It'd remain otherwise open - though presumably closely watched with an eye to blocking/protection for "unrelated" edits. On the other hand, once you have this in place, a general block becomes a much more significant thing - there's your negative social effect. A short "article block" is one thing, but to block them from editing *anywhere*! Massive abuse of power! Disproportionate response! &c. So that's an effect; whether it's positive or negative is arguable. -- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk

On 6/22/05, David Gerard <fun(a)thingy.apana.org.au> wrote: Making 3RR blocks more fine grained could avoid lots of bad blood. Some possible side effects: - Shunting "angst" to other related articles, though probably not significant - Management interface for the access control list for (# of articles) x (# of users) - An article level block would probably be less stigmatized, so possibility of more blocks happening -User:Fuzheado

On 6/22/05, Tim Starling <t.starling(a)physics.unimelb.edu.au> wrote: It would be hand If you want a shared ip to stop doing something. -- geni

In my experience, when this kind of person is blocked from editing one article (e.g. via page protection), he or she typically moves on to start edit warring on a related article. A good example is one of the people currently being proposed for RfAR, who has managed to get perhaps 10 articles protected so far, one after another, returning to the originals for further revert warring when they are unprotected again. Jay.

Or alternatively, they could just be blocked from Wikipedia. I take it this would not need to be used in all cases. :) -- ambi On 6/22/05, Tim Starling <t.starling(a)physics.unimelb.edu.au> wrote:

On 6/22/05, JAY JG <jayjg(a)hotmail.com> wrote: 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. -User:Fuzheado

On 6/22/05, JAY JG <jayjg(a)hotmail.com> wrote: Then perhaps the 9RR (or 3 x 3RR) rule will result in a ban from all editing. :) A persistent "reverter" on one article will have to wait 24 hours, but he'll be facing a legion of admins ready to hit the block button again. It is highly likely the invidivudal will run out of patience first. -User:Fuzheado