Wikipedia:Per-article blocking

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

✘ This Wikipedia page is currently inactive and is retained as a historical archive.
A historical page is either no longer relevant or consensus has become unclear. If you want to revive discussion regarding the subject, you should seek broader input via a forum such as the proposals page of the village pump.

Per-article blocking is a proposed feature and policy that would permit administrators to stop a contributor from editing a single, specific article. Jimbo was one of the first to propose it.

An admin would click on a "block from this page" link. This would add the page in question to a list of pages which the user is prevented from editing.

[edit] The rationale

It seems too harsh a restriction, to ban a person from every page at Wikipedia. It also seems inconvenient to other editors to restrict them also from editing the article in question which happens in the event of page protection.

Contents


[edit] 84% Support

  1. Andrew Gray - "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." [1]
  2. Andrew Lih - "Making 3RR blocks more fine grained could avoid lots of bad blood." [2]
  3. BaronLarf 16:42, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC) Great idea. If there's a revert war between two people over an article, this would be a good way to block both parties for 24 hours on that particular article to allow things to cool down without blocking their ability to respond on talk pages or edit other articles.
  4. Dan Grey - "Tim's idea would be an excellent feature. IMO, the pros greatly outweigh the cons. We could at least trial it." [3]
  5. David Gerard - "would make 3RR blocks much less controversial" [4]
  6. Ed Poor - "great for newbies, especially the "unsigned-in" at libraries and school. It's a big shock to be blocked from all edits" [5]
  7. User:Fastfission - "a wonderful idea. I think a lot of edit wars and revert wars could be stopped"[6]
  8. geni - "It would be handy if you want a shared IP to stop doing something." [7] [8]
  9. James F. (talk) 16:15, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  10. Michael Snow - "gives the antisocial more rope to hang themselves with, while simultaneously taking a lot of the sting out of being blocked" [9]
  11. RoseParks 14:20, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC) - Seems more fitting to the crime.
  12. Sam Spade - "an excellent idea,"[10] would keep accidental violators or victims of controversial blocks from feeling overly stigmatised.
  13. Tim Starling - "this one seems to be unusually well-supported" [11]
  14. I don't see much point in using this against non-anonymous problem editors, but it would be an excellent alternative to protection for pages that are getting vandalised from someone with access to a large netblock (like AOLers) where just blocking the entire netblock isn't viable. --W(t) 16:38, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)
  15. I would have voted on the mailing list, but I was waiting for the bugzilla page :) Alphax τεχ 17:35, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  16. Strongly support. It would end edit wars but still welcome people to wikipedia Billhpike 19:13, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
  17. Gentgeen 22:41, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  18. Could cut down on the need for protection. --Slowking Man 23:07, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
  19. Deathphoenix 00:33, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC) This is a good alternative to the sledgehammer that is the current blocking mechanism.
  20. 24.54.208.177 03:38, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC) I agree, it's ideal for 3RR cases. 24.54.208.177 03:38, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  21. Support. It avoids the stigmatizing that arises by being completely blocked from editing. - Mgm|(talk) 12:56, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
  22. It seems to be a fairly standard remedy in WP:RFC and WP:RFAr resolutions to bar perpetrators from editing certain pages or groups of pages: this would be the perfect way to enforce those decisions. Can it be specified in terms of entire namespaces? Phil | Talk 15:21, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
  23. Support - per Andrew Gray, gives new, powerful but surgical tool to administrators. --FCYTravis 21:10, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  24. Support Good idea. I'd also like to see the nuisance-threshold for getting this block lower than for 3RR, and the ban period longer. William M. Connolley 22:01, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC).
  25. Strong support. Reminds me of the commercial; I can't believe its not butter; because I can't believe this wasn't followed up when previously suggested by someone who's had a good idea or two in his day. In response to "what good it'll do," I think it equally self evident that when blocked from a single page any editor (admin or not) is on probation during that article block. Any misbehavior during that time can then be justifiably dealt with in a firm and hopefully corrective manner. - RoyBoy 800 28 June 2005 06:17 (UTC)
  26. Support. It would be nice to not have to ban someone from all of Wikipedia just to stop an edit war on a particular article. This gives admins the option of a "surgical strike". Kaldari 28 June 2005 14:51 (UTC)
  27. Support. No big downside, and could be useful in some cases. - Taxman Talk June 28, 2005 16:48 (UTC)
  28. Support. I've already seen cases that could escalate where they could need this. Cmouse 2 July 2005 06:13 (UTC)
  29. Support. More choices of tools that have less potential for collateral damage is always better. Unfocused 5 July 2005 15:34 (UTC)
  30. Support, absolutely. Recent ArbCom rulings show that it's useful to be able to block certain users from certain (groups of) articles. Also useful to stop revert wars, or vandalism from IP addresses (a long-term block against the IP, even an AOL IP, would be workable if it only blocked from a certain article). Radiant_>|< 11:41, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
  31. Support. In some edit wars, it may be appropriate for all participants to be per-page banned and to let cooler heads try to improve the article.Robert A West 18:26, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
  32. Support. A user may be a "problem" only on a single subject, but very productive on others. --Janke | Talk 06:30, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  33. I support this feature request. It would make it a lot easier to enforce ArbCom rulings and block shared IP addresses with less collateral damage. Rhobite 05:11, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
  34. Support. See my comments on talk page. Robert McClenon 20:34, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
  35. Support (nothing to add) KissL 09:29, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
  36. Support long overdue tool for dealing with disruptive anon's operating from proxy servers TDC 14:14, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
  37. Support good idea. Eclipsed 19:37, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
  38. Support A nice idea, which balances the need to stop edit wars and 3RRers with not needing to go to the extreme of blocking a page (helps no-one, sometimes just gets everyone more angry) or banning a user. Also, as stated above, useful against anon users with no talk page and no interest in dialogue. Batmanand 18:59, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  39. Support Admins are trusted to make such judgments already, I see no reason why they can't be trusted with this. Y0u (Y0ur talk page) (Y0ur contributions) 19:36, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
  40. Support. As for abusive administrators, the problem isn't specific to this power. Perhaps there are ways to strengthen monitoring/policing of admin powers use. (Who watches the watchers?) Rd232 12:38, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  41. Support. why did it take so long to come up with this!!!??? --Heah (talk) 19:15, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  42. Support. TexasAndroid 19:51, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  43. Support. Helpful in stopping useless addiction to a certain article and encourages people to edit a variety of articles. — Stevey7788 (talk) 20:25, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  44. Support. With people like User:Adamwankenobi and his socks on a parade killing the Bush article (in rather nerdy ways I add) we need this. Redwolf24 21:23, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  45. Strongly support. Jimbo's approval is enough, but the common sense of this feature is also quite evident. -- Essjay · Talk 00:27, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
  46. Support Would be a great alternative to 3RR blocks. -- nyenyec ☎ 01:36, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  47. Support. Mistercow 09:02, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  48. Support - as long as we have clear guidelines on usage. Secretlondon 14:04, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  49. Support - wonderful idea for tackling POV warriors who fixate on one topic. Tearlach 18:29, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  50. Support. Megapixie 05:30, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  51. Support. Exploding Boy 00:55, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
  52. Support. Jayjg (talk) 15:55, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  53. Support. I would like to see this put into trial use as soon as technically possible. Carbonite | Talk 16:00, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  54. Support. Sounds like an excellent idea. Jll 18:32, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  55. Support. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 03:31, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  56. Support Rangerdude 07:03, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
  57. Support. Tomer TALK 19:09, August 23, 2005 (UTC) When doing so, let the user know however, that they've been blocked from editing that article, and why.
  58. Support. Sounds like an exelent idea, I like the fact that normal editers can continue. It would also discurage vandals as their purpose is to make a statment heard through any means possible and if that statment can't even be heard in the form of a global editing block then the vandalism is useless to them.--Diploid 21:22, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
  59. Support It's just another tool. Of course we should implement it. The policy of appropriate use will evolve. SchmuckyTheCat 18:29, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Those opposed (6% opposition)

  1. User:Heathcliff I think this is bad idea. It would have a huge potential for abuse, but would benefit nothing. A user that needs to be blocked, needs to be blocked--period. And I suspect that for any real policy violation the complete block would still be used. This feature would therefore only be used when there was not a real violation, but simply a zealous editor who got on an administrators bad side. I already have serious concerns about administrator abuse on Wikipedia. It's one of two reasons I contribute so little (though I've never personally been a victim of it). I think this would open a flood gate to much more abuse, because administrators who turn a blind eye when one of their own abuses his or her power to block editors (and there are several of them) would be even more likely to ignore abuses of this stripped down blocking power. And yet, in reality this ability is every bit as powerful a tool for administrator abuse as the complete block. From my observations administrators are as likely to engage in edit wars as editors. Perhaps even more likely since administrators tend to spend a lot of time on Wikipedia. And while most administrators do not abuse there position, the ones that do would be very tempted to use this per-article blocking power just to win edit wars. And I doubt the good administrators (who are likely busy with other matters) will do anything about it.
  2. Oppose "This policy will limit and change the purpose of this site, to be a "free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." I fear it will do more harm than good. Adamwankenobi 19:22, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  3. Oppose- too extreme- admins will abuse their power to force their ways. Astrotrain 18:55, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Oppose this isn't restricted to clear vandalism, nor is it restricted in time. It appears to get admins into the business of judging content.--Silverback 13:46, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  5. If you want to make rules that enable administrators to have the final say-so over content, why lie about it? Why not get rid of all the silly little ways of circumventing equal editing power and just admit the truth, that editors have nothing to add to Wikipedia in the way of content. We can do the research and copy-edit work as long as it's at the approval of the most powerful admin controlling that article, but in the end, we're really nothing more than slaves to a system that disallows choice for anyone but those in the highest positions of authority. We don't need another way for administrators to control the system. If we want to stop turning good editors into vandals and malcontents, we need to be honest with people from the start. We need to tell them that if they fail to subjugate themselves to the will of the top administrator who has staked their claim to each article, they will be permablocked, belittled, and blacklisted from the community. With this proposed tool, admins will also have the option of banishing the naive editor from the article. --Zephram Stark 22:21, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
  6. Oppose I don't believe that per article blocking will stop vandals from vandalizing. A block should serve, ideally, two puposes: to stop the vandal from continuing his vadalism, and hopefully to send a message that malicious editing will not be tolerated. A vandal doesn't care WHAT he is vandalizing, but more the fact that he is vandalizing something. To block him from a specific page would simply direct him to a different page to vandalize. Anything the has the possibility of resulting in a per-article block could be handled through mediation. Kntrabssi 19:25, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neutral or mixed (10%)

  1. Gregory Maxwell [12] [13] I support the feature, but oppose its use for 3RR, and would encourage caution in its use. I'm not sure that it buys it much. Cool-offs should be for all of wikipedia, and single admins should not decide that a user is categorically forbidden from editing a subject (because we can't expect single admins to do the extensive evaluation of a users history needed to make it happen). In the case of an arbcom decision to forbid a user from some subjects, its is better to avoid technical enforcement. The big gain I see is increased ability to make fine grained blocks against users on shared IPs. If we are going to implement it, .. it would be fantastic if we could specify articles by regular expression (or at least be able to block based on namespace) and/or cat membership.
  2. Angela - currently unsure, but its worth trialling for a while to see if it works.
  3. Zzyzx11 (Talk) I am also unsure if it would be effective. But I would be willing to have a test run.
  4. User:Klonimus This could be abused by admins. Leave this as a tool for ArbCom only. Klonimus 06:34, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  5. ~~~~ 15:22, 23 July 2005 (UTC) This would leave scope for too much abuse. Should be restricted to bureaucrats acting on rulings by ArbCom only.
  6. khaosworks 02:45, August 4, 2005 (UTC) as per Klonimus.
  7. I agree with what Gmaxwell and Klonimus said. Furthermore, a complete block may be better for 3RR. The point of the 3RR block isn't just to protect one article, but to give cooling-down time, and to punish (ahem - give an incentive to avoid such behavior in the future). ~~ N (t/c) 19:35, 4 August 2005 (UTC) Further comment: The only purpose I can see for this is to provide hard enforcement of arbcom decisions of the form "User X is prohibited from editing articles such as Y". However, many of those apply to very broad categories of articles, so maybe there should also be a system "protect all articles except these from user X". ~~ N (t/c) 09:18, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  8. CanadaGirl 11:46, 21 October 2005 (UTC) I think it's a potentially good idea, but maybe it should require more than 1 admin to implement the block.

[edit] Tally (58/4/7)