User talk:Light current: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 00:23, 27 January 2007 editLight current (talk \| contribs)30,368 edits →Why I blocked THB: look at it more closely← Previous edit		Revision as of 06:00, 27 January 2007 edit undoRockpocket (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users24,891 edits →Why I blocked THB: please resist getting involvedNext edit →
Line 40:		Line 40:

	:Hmmm I shall have to look at it more closely 8-\|--] 00:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)		:Hmmm I shall have to look at it more closely 8-\|--] 00:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
			:: Do so, LC. But please try and resist getting involved (as I have), its not in anyone's interest. ]<font color="black">e</font>] 06:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

	== ] ==		== ] ==

Revision as of 06:00, 27 January 2007

Please post new TOPICS to the TOP of my talk page (but below this notice). For adding comments under existing headings, use contents box to get to the right section

Light current is resting in his cave
licking his wounds and considering his options 8-((

Please do not thow any stuff into my cave unless it is nourishing food or drink.

Please use headlines when starting new topics -----------Thank you---------

Saying of the day: Im not totally anarchic. It just seems that way to those who dont know me!!

Here's my edit count.

Why I blocked THB

Since you asked... It all started when StuRat made an inappropriate joke on the reference desk. Justanother called him on it, and StuRat was willing to let it go (if not to admit the intention of the joke). Then THB began giving Justanother trouble about it, as in this edit; I responded by asking THB not to make further arguments of the "you can't prove what he meant" type, as when things are sufficiently obvious it's just time-wasting and game-playing. He responded, shall we say, rather negatively, and I warned him that I would block him if he played any more games. That's when he started swearing at me. It's pretty clear he was trying to taunt me into blocking him, but frankly I think he got away with enough silliness for one day. -- SCZenz 00:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm I shall have to look at it more closely 8-|--Light current 00:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Do so, LC. But please try and resist getting involved (as I have), its not in anyone's interest. Rockpocket 06:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Acoustic suspension

The article you wrote, Acoustic suspension, is uncategorized. Please help improve it by adding it to one or more categories, so it may be associated with related articles. A stub marker or other template doesn't count - please put in an actual category in the article. Eli Falk 10:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

My thoughts on selective blocking

What a good idea! General blocking is such a blunt instrument and acts more as punishment than a preventative measure.

Advantages

Protects the specific pages form vandalism/disruption
Does not stop user from contributing elsewhere (ie minimising punishment effect)
Does not piss off user as much

Disadvantages

Needs new coding to implement (possibly)

Comments

The only way editors currently get partially "blocked" in this fashion is when ArbCom bans them from specific articles. It's self-policing, really; if an editor breaches the ban, they simply get blocked for poor behavior. Otherwise, I'm not sure who would do the blocking-per-article; who would determine that an editor is bad news on one article but not elsewhere? Occasionally we have informal arrangements, such as when an admin tells a troublesome editor "stay away from this article or I'll block you outright for disruption"; the community has generally supported such unilateral bans, and they often work, in my observation anyway. Implementing the selective blocking you like isn't hard; it would just require adding a field to the user record that contains a list of article titles that they're blocked from, no big deal. --jpgordon 23:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah OK. But do we need ArbCom to decide on this? Could it not be done by say 2 or more Admins agreeing to block an individual in this manner. I certainly would have preferred to have been blocked only from the pages where I was accused of disruption etc, and allowed to carry on contributing elsewhere. Im sure this would be a much better form of protection of pages and also not seen as a punishment for the editors concerned. It would also I feel lead to less resentment from those who are temporarily blocked.--Light current 23:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

There are two separate issues involved. One is whether admins have the authority to direct a user not to edit a particular article, as a lesser sanction to being blocked altogether. The consensus seems to be that in appropriate circumstances they do, although the "community sanctions" proposal was a little bit controversial and you, Light current, were pretty much the last person I expected to be arguing in favor of a new power for administrators. :)

The second question is whether the software should be rewritten to enable selective blocks to be enforced automatically. With regard to that aspect, the rule seems to be that ArbCom does not have authority to direct the Developers (who actually write the code) to do something, as acknowledged in the so-called Giano case, when the ArbCom voted unanimously that a particular record in a log should be expunged "if developers cooperate," and the lead developer posted to the Workshop with the comment "Absolutely unacceptable.... Will not be fulfilled" and it wasn't (at that time, anyway). Bear in mind also that the Mediawiki code is written not just for this English Misplaced Pages but for hundreds of other projects, so they can't make a change based on one project's input alone. Having said that, it would be a good button to have; for example, I've often wished that 3RR blocks could be just from the article being edit-warred over rather than the whole site. Hope these thoughts are helpful, or at least coherent. Regards, Newyorkbrad 23:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Well if Admins have the power to block editors from all WP, I dont see selective blocking for a defined period as a particular ethical problem. I am arguing in favor because it is the lesser of the two evils (for the editor concerned); ie better to be blocked just from the pages where you are percieved to be causing trouble rather than WP as a whole! Remember Im not all bad -- It just seems that way (sometimes)!

The implementation problems I leave to others with regard to whether the idea is practicable. I have benn told twice it can be done easily and twice that it cant!--Light current 00:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

My question would be: why would an editor who has been disruptive enough to warrant a block from one page, be trusted to not be disruptive on another page? Rockpocket 01:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

3RR would be a good example. Sometimes someone who loses perspective on a particular issue and needs a breather (that's what 3RR is for, after all) might still be able to perform good edits elsewhere. -- SCZenz 01:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes problems with a particular editor (like me) tend to occur on one page I feel. For instance, I have temporarily 'blocked' myself from the RDs to see if situation improves without me. But, I can still edit other pages which keeps me occupied and takes my mind off the other issues. I can also contribute to policies and present other suggestions for improving the WP process--Light current 01:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) well...thing is, a reasonable, well-intentioned editor acting in good faith can likely be counted on to behave elsewhere if told not to edit one problematic article, so the actual blocking mechanism isn't necessary; and the other sort of editor will be a pain on other articles, regardless of whether they are banned or actually blocked from one article, so I'm not sure how selective blocking would really improve things on the whole. --jpgordon 05:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I dont agree that the other sort of editor will necessarily be a pain on other articles. But thats just my opinion. I dont know if there are any statsitcs on 'disruptive editors' and how far they extend their disruption in any one period. You would probably know better than I. 8-)--Light current 05:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I guess a good metric would be "how many editors that have been banned from specific articles on ArbCom have continued as 'good editors' elsewhere, how many have become troublesome elsewhere, and how many have simply stopped editing anything at all?" I don't know the answer to that -- it would be an interesting little research problem for someone that wants to wade through every old arbitration case. --jpgordon 08:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Now if I wanted to take this idea further, where would be the best place to air it? Village pump?--Light current 17:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I guess. Policy, probably? --jpgordon 17:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Thoughts for you

Light current, I've been following the discussion on this page and on the noticeboard. I know you have made real contributions to the encyclopedia and that Misplaced Pages is important to you. I also know you've been warned about various things by several different administrators. You're sad the possibility that things might change or you might not be able to edit any more.

What I would like you to do is ask yourself this. Why do you think that a number of different editors and administrators are asking you to change your behavior. Please indulge in the assumption that all the people who have criticized you have come to the good-faith conclusion that some of your comments are problematic, rather than conspired to harass and drive away a long-time editor. I know you feel put upon sometimes, but honestly, I don't think that a group of people conspired on- or off-Wiki to gang up on User:Light current.

Ask yourself, Why have these people, who are also long-time and valued contributors, come to the conclusion that there are things about Light current's contributions and comments need to change? Are any of these concerns legitimate, do you think? What can you do to help satisfy them?

You don't need to respond to any of this on-Wiki if you don't care to, but if you introspect about what I have just written for a little while it might help you to "assess your options" as you put it above.

Anyway, pardon my putting my thoughts and questions here, but I hope they will be considered "nourishing" enough. Regards, Newyorkbrad 01:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: I must have written this at the same moment you were writing your goodbye post on the noticeboard. If you are leaving, then thank you for the contributions you made while you were here, and I wish you well. Regards, Newyorkbrad 01:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I hope this is farewell rather than goodbye. Wikibreaks are a good thing and yours is well earned. Come back when you're tanned, rested, and ready. And thoroughly chilled. Regards, Durova 02:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

A mere respite!--Light current 02:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

If you really are Steve McQueen, i'd like to see you riding that bike with a big smile very soon. I'm sure in this rerun he'll escape. David D. (Talk) 02:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I always have a ~~wicked~~ big smile (except when I dont)

Those who ignored the instructions - please put your posts here

Posts placed here may not recieve replies and may be deleted. Please do not complain afterwards. You have been told! 8-)