2017 Community Wishlist Survey/Anti-harassment/Per-page user blocking

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

⬅ Back to Anti-harassment The survey has concluded. Here are the results!


  • Problem:

On EN wikipedia we go through four levels of warnings before we block vandals, but we have a hair trigger for blocking edit warrers. This is crazy, we rarely turn vandals in to useful editors (OK some come back when they've grown up) but almost all edit warrers are useful members of the community who just get over enthusiastic.

  • Who would benefit:

Everyone who gets into editing disputes, everyone who tries to resolve such disputes and those who wish we could resolve things without always first going to a block.

  • Proposed solution:

A new level of page protection - protect v named individuals. Admins would be able to resolve edit warring incidents by protecting the page where the edit war was taking place against editing by particular named accounts. This would need to be independent of whether the page was also under pending changes, semi protection or extended confirmed protection. Blocking would still be an option, but we would now have an option to resolve things with less grief.

The edit warrers would then be free to edit elsewhere.

This tool would also be useful for some cases where interaction bans apply.

  • More comments:
  • Phabricator tickets:

Discussion

"almost all edit warrers are useful members of the community who just get over enthusiastic"

That doesn't make it ok. Edit wars are counterproductive, antagonistic, and stressful, and drive people away from editing. Needlessly aggressive behavior like edit warring should be heavily discouraged. — Omegatron (talk) 02:24, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Agreed, and stopping people from editing that page would still be heavy discouragement. But why continue the current system where we deal much more harshly with edit warring than we do with vandalism? Even with this proposal most vandals get a warning on first, second, third and fourth offences, whilst an edit warrer would currently get a block on first offence and under this proposal instead of a series of four warnings would start with the page being protected against them with escalation to a block. Both edit warring and vandalism are wrong, why do you want us to treat edit warring so much more harshly? WereSpielChequers (talk) 09:46, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
WereSpielChequers, would it be okay if we retitled this proposal "Per-user page blocking"? It's not as eye-catching as "Edit Warring - a better solution", but it's a more neutral point of view. :) -- DannyH (WMF) (talk) 21:53, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi Danny, how about "page protection v specified accounts" as I'm keen to have this considered a form of page protection rather than a type of user blocking. WereSpielChequers (talk) 22:20, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
I have encountered few Edit wars in my time on wikipedia, but I did encounter problematic editors who reverted my edits on sight. My usual reaction was to walk away because of the hassle involved in reporting edit-wars to the "authorities". If this proposal will simplify the process and not be prone to abuse, it may save a whole lot of cumulative editing time. Ottawahitech (talk) 14:29, 14 November 2017 (UTC) Please ping me
This Addition makes a lot of sense, while it may not be easy to implement. Anyhow, let's put it on the wishlist. --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 19:11, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Definitely makes sense.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:15, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

This has already been proposed in the Admin section (which is probably a better place for protection/blocking proposals):

Those frame it as blocking, not protection, but it's essentially the same thing. --Tgr (WMF) (talk) 04:08, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

The three proposals are all slightly different.
Anomie (talk) 23:22, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I think this is a coercive calm design that avoids excessive useless disputes that arise in the editing or discussion of a specific entry. This should not appear to young editors. This may be more suitable to an injunction policy, but apply a policy may be more controversial than the feature. It should not be long-term, just a few days/weeks to calm down and alert this to affect others. This does not apply if this is bound to cause disruption. 1/2 support, I suspect that this bring a problem, the parties may continue to see other people doing similar controversial edits and can not intervene, it brings a negative perception, unless also prevent the parties contact (including activity and view) the particular page.--YFdyh000 (talk) 09:01, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Hello all — This item did not make the Top 10 for the 2017 Wishlist, but the Wikimedia Foundation's Anti-Harassment Tools team is already looking into building better blocking tools in early 2018. Support for this proposal and the comments are already being taken into account. Read more and participate in the discussion at Community health initiative/Blocking tools and improvements. Thank you, and I hope to see you there! — Trevor Bolliger, WMF Product Manager 🗨 23:07, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Voting

  • Support Supportviciarg414 08:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 12:49, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support Donald Trung (Talk 🤳🏻) (My global lock 🔒) (My global unlock 🔓) 13:15, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support Sadads (talk) 13:33, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support Jc86035 (talk) 14:38, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support--Ymblanter (talk) 16:22, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support - Darwin Ahoy! 16:59, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support Thomas Obermair 4 (talk) 21:37, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support Shizhao (talk) 02:51, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support SupportAmmarpad (talk) 06:50, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose – this is excessive and unnecessary. Temporarily blocking editors that refuse to follow the rules of an article works fine. Natureium (talk) 19:07, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support Nabla (talk) 19:20, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support LakesideMiners (talk) 19:28, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support Joshualouie711 (talk) 19:32, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support Andrew (talk) 20:31, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support MGChecker (talk) 22:01, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support --g (talk) 00:27, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support Daylen (talk) 01:16, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose - My feeling is that there are better things for comm tech team to spend their time on, when there is a suitable alternatively (notably, full protection of problematic article, or if the problem is across multiple pages, blocking of the problematic user). --Izno (talk) 03:00, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support Strong support. Why didn't we have this already? This could also help to enforce topic bans. I really don't understand the opposition.Mr. Guye (talk) 03:43, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support Nihlus 04:59, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support This would be a good and more efficient alternative to the usage of filters for selective page blocking. --L736Etell me 08:05, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support I'd also like to dispute the two oppose rationales: Temporary blocking often causes the issues to reoccur as soon as blocks expire, or the user was being helpful on pages A and B but not pages C and D and then other users working on pages A and B complain. Full protection has too much collateral damage in many instances. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:29, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose per Izno. Unnecessary. --Vachovec1 (talk) 17:32, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support I agree. Sometimes people just get a little overreactive. Tessaract2 (talk) 18:16, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support Reception123 (talk) 19:30, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support Daniel Case (talk) 00:47, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support Ottawahitech (talk) 13:34, 1 December 2017 (UTC) Please ping me
  • Support Support --Superchilum(talk to me!) 16:16, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support Danii.3 (talk) 17:41, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support Supuhstar (talk) 19:29, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 20:03, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support per nom. This could be a very useful tool. Operator873 (talk) 05:17, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose per above. --Terra  (talk) 06:49, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support MichaelSchoenitzer (talk) 14:24, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:53, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support Patar knightchat/contributions 20:59, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support Yes, PLEASE. In coming across a report at RFPP, a MAJOR consideration before protecting a page is the degree of "collateral damage" in the form of constructive users who would be prevented from editing. This is particularly the case when two experienced users begin an edit-war. A user-specific protection/page-specific block would be immensely helpful. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:33, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support could be very useful in some cases. -- seth (talk) 10:44, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support Winged Blades of Godric (talk) 16:26, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support Ciao • Bestoernesto 22:53, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support TheNavigatrr (talk) 01:07, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support Majo statt Senf (talk) 01:21, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support Tiputini (talk) 07:11, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support GoEThe (talk) 11:48, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support SupportDavey2010Talk 15:32, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support Yeza (talk) 23:22, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose People need to learn how to temper their enthusiasm and self revert when warned. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:08, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support Lofhi (talk) 17:49, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support even though I believe that both edit warriors and vandals can and should go rot somewhere else. Do I feel strongly about edits? yes! Have I and will I ever edit war? No. enL3X1 ¡‹delayed reaction›¡ 03:48, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support Yohannvt (talk) 11:59, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support Me-123567-Me (talk) 22:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support WWGB (talk) 00:21, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support Ealdgyth (talk) 13:35, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support X:: black ::X (talk) 13:51, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support Miaow 01:59, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support Alangi Derick (talk) 15:10, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support --Hkoala (talk) 05:14, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support Perrak (talk) 20:50, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support Preferably, some documentation on a process to accompanying this user to more constructive contributions should be done. This is no longer a technical task, but technical mechs are just a light part of the story here. Psychoslave (talk) 07:36, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support GoboFR (talk) 10:53, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support, with reasoning detailed in 2017 Community Wishlist Survey/Admins and stewards/Allow further user block options ("can edit XY" etc.). Please do it not as a protection level but as sort of personal sanction against given users so that it appears in block (sanctions?) log of respective users rather that in the protection log of the page — NickK (talk) 12:55, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support — Luchesar • T/C 13:15, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support--KRLS (talk) 14:12, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support Martin Kraft (talk) 17:53, 11 December 2017 (UTC)