[WikiEN-l] Re: Per-article blocking

Thu Jun 23 12:48:36 UTC 2005

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
>