[WikiEN-l] Re: Per-article blocking (was: RickK leaving)

Wed Jun 22 00:51:56 UTC 2005

On 22/06/05, David Gerard <fun at thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:
> Tim Starling (t.starling at physics.unimelb.edu.au) [050622 10:39]:
> 
> > Are there any objections to this? I'm accustomed to all blocking-related
> > features being controversial, but this one seems to be unusually
> > well-supported.
> 
> It would certainly make 3RR blocks much less controversial.
> 
> Mind you, I'm now trying to think of possible social side effects.

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 at dunelm.org.uk