Wikipedia talk:Per-article blocking

I'm wondering whether Tim Starling or Magnus has already written the software changes, to do this.

If not, what are they waiting for? Jimbo asked for this a long time ago, and there is was no recorded opposition as of the time of the suggestion.

There are now 2 recorded No votes, and 48 recorded Yes votes. Robert McClenon 14:29, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Let's do it!

Ed Poor, aka Uncle Ed
Professional Software Engineer
Developer Emeritus
Mediation Committee member
English Wikipedia Administrator (along with 490 others)
English Wikipedia Bureaucrat (I appointed Cecropia)

Yes, I certainly hope so. This IP can certainly be blocked from editing, say, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. --Deathphoenix 20:39, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• There is a related feature I would like to see. If a user is logged in, and is not blocked as a user, an IP-specific block should not apply to that user. The primary reason for this is that with shared IPs, a vandalism block often affects innocent users, who are logged in and have a good edit history to demonstrate that they are not desrving of a block. Specifically i frequently ediut via dial-up AOL, and have several times run into IP-blocks imposed becase of other AOL users, although I am logged in. Since there is a need to block sockpuppets, and people who evade user blocks by anoono editing, there really need to be three leveles of blocks:

1) Ordianry IP blocks, due to vandalism or otehr problem edits from anon users. These would not affect logged-in users who happen to edit from the same IP.

2) User blocks. Thes woulld apply to the user involved, no matter what IP that user is editing from.

3) Hard IP blocks (I want a better name for these). Thjes would apply to any user editing from the IP involved, adn would only be applied when a user seems to be trying to evade other sorts of blocks by creating sockpuppets or making annon edits. Admins should be particularly wary of imposing these on shared IPs.

Ihope the above is useful. I son't see why it would be technically hard. DES 21:51, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think that another similar policy is needed. As I understand it, this policy as written would allow specific articles to be protected from edits by specific users (e.g., those who have been banned by the ArbCom from editing those articles).

I think that there also should be a feature to allow particular articles to be protected from editing by all unsigned-in IP addresses. I agree that allowing anonymous edits, as are currently permitted, is normally desirable. However, in certain cases, the benefit of anonymous edits to specified articles is greatly outweighted by the risks. There are two current RfCs involving persistent disruptive anonymous edits that are probably really use of anonymous sockpuppets to avoid the 3RR rule.

The first such case is the Senator Edward Kennedy page. An anonymous user persists in putting up a link to a political attack page ridiculing the senator. There is a consensus, although not unanimity, that the link is inappropriate and non-encyclopedic. An admin has been forced to put the article under complete protection. If the feature existed, the article could be protected from anonymous (and disruptive) edits, while allowing constructive edits by signed-in users.

The second such case is the various pages on philosophy, such as Truth, that are under attack from an anonymous user apparently known as Dot-Six. The Wikipedia:NPOV page should also be protected from anonymous edits, because Dot-Six has been vandalizing it because he considers it to be logically fallacious.

Wikipedia needs the capability to protect articles from anonymous edits when there is a pattern of abusive anonymous edits. Robert McClenon 20:49, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Protecting some problem pages from anons would be a good idea. William M. Connolley 21:39:50, 2005-07-27 (UTC).

I think that there are two different versions of this concept. One is a block of an article from a specific user. While most Wikipedians appear to agree that that is a good idea, some disagree. If it is implemented, it should be implemented very cautiously. I would suggest that it only be allowed after an ArbCom ruling banning a user from editing articles related to certain subjects.

The other is a block of an article from being edited by anonymous users. I think that is clearly necessary because of a few abusive anonymous editors. Blocking an article from anonymous edits has very little real potential for abuse, because anyone who has been arbitrarily blocked can always then 'sign in'. I think that there is a consensus for both concepts. However, we might want to split the policy into two policies, one having to do with named users and one having to do with blocking an article from all anonymous edits. Robert McClenon 23:41, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can agree with a per article anonymous users block, although I voted to oppose the amorphous whole. Something needs to be done.--Silverback 13:52, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

I wonder why only 4 people have voted for the related bugzilla issue: bugzilla:674. Or is there another one?

-- nyenyec ☎ 01:40, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe there had not been a link until you provided it. Thank you. Robert McClenon 02:05, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do I need to create an account to vote for it? Robert McClenon 02:08, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think so. -- nyenyec ☎ 02:23, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• It doesn't matter, since the devs do not take voting into account on bugzilla. Radiant_>|< 00:00, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the proposal has a lot of support votes. When will the voting end? What will be the next step?

-- nyenyec ☎ 02:23, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It has a lot of support votes a month later. When can it become a policy? Robert McClenon 18:30, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• It is not a matter of policy. It is a matter of whether the developers consider this worthy of implementing. Until we hear from them, there's no point in discussing it further. Radiant_>|< 00:00, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I assume 24hours? While I think this block can be a useful tool, my biggest concern is its impact on admin bahavior. If the block is percieved by them as a mild measure, then admins will be tempted to impose it at a far lower thesholds, and will as a consequence be far more interventionist, and block more often and for longer time periods.--Silverback 06:41, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd assume that like ordinary blocks, they last for however long you specify, up to and including infinitely long. Radiant_>|< 00:00, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]