Wikipediocracy

As a Community health initiative (sic!) "the Anti-Harassment Tools team is looking into ways to measure the effectiveness of blocks — both sitewide and partial."

linkhttps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communi ... _of_blocks[/link]

So they've been blocking editors for donkey's years now without having any idea of how effective they are? Why doesn't that surprise me?

Maybe people here can help. Hands up any blocked user who thinks that their block has been in any way effective.

Poetlister wrote:Maybe people here can help. Hands up any blocked user who thinks that their block has been in any way effective.

I make sure mine isn't effective!

But I guess it depends on how you define effective.
- Is it effective on keeping people from editing if they want to? Not really.
- Is it effective at creating drama? Yep.
- Is it effective at stopping vandalism? Not really, that's why the Edit Filters and Cluebot were created
- Does it keep people from socking? Nope
- Does it prevent paid editors from creating articles for clients? Nope
and
- Is it effective at preventing improvements to Wikipedia? Absolutely

Hell pretty much everyone at this point knows that the only reason I sock, send emails and make trollish comments is because of my bullshit ban and my ban/block is literally the only thing keeping me from doing thousands of edits a week. But since it's more important to intimidate the community and make work for admins by vilifying otherwise positive editors, blocks and bans will continue regardless of whether they do anything to help or hurt the projects.

Very short IP blocks for vandalism are probably worth it. Some longer blocks of users possibly have the effect of forcing the person in question to behave better.

Ming wrote:Very short IP blocks for vandalism are probably worth it. Some longer blocks of users possibly have the effect of forcing the person in question to behave better.

Ming. When do you admit you are a part of a tremendous troll complex, that this account is used by several trolls, that you and your friends have acces to many accounts, and that trolls are not in the position to raise serious editors.

Graaf Statler wrote:...trolls are not in the position to raise serious editors.

I think if a troll couple were to hire a good nanny, someone with a background in language and grammar skills, surely the child might be able to overcome his or her inborn disadvantages in that regard...?

Ming wrote:Very short IP blocks for vandalism are probably worth it. Some longer blocks of users possibly have the effect of forcing the person in question to behave better.

My vote would be for making the person in question more resentful.

Eric Corbett wrote:

Ming wrote:Very short IP blocks for vandalism are probably worth it. Some longer blocks of users possibly have the effect of forcing the person in question to behave better.

My vote would be for making the person in question more resentful.

Probably so, but if they are resentful and better-behaved, a lot of people would count that an improvement.

Ming wrote:

Eric Corbett wrote:

Ming wrote:Very short IP blocks for vandalism are probably worth it. Some longer blocks of users possibly have the effect of forcing the person in question to behave better.

My vote would be for making the person in question more resentful.

Probably so, but if they are resentful and better-behaved, a lot of people would count that an improvement.

I think it depends on why they were blocked. Were they blocked because they were an asshole, because they performed vandalism, because they crossed an admin that didn't like them, because they socked?

If the block was for behavioral issues that's one thing but if it's just because the editor annoyed some admin, like one that threatened them with a block if they didn't leave their articles alone, that could cause them to be resentful of the entire project, not want to contribute anymore and turn to vandalism and trolling the project instead of useful contributions. It's happened, several times.

Kumioko wrote:If the block was for behavioral issues that's one thing but if it's just because the editor annoyed some admin, like one that threatened them with a block if they didn't leave their articles alone, that could cause them to be resentful of the entire project, not want to contribute anymore and turn to vandalism and trolling the project instead of useful contributions. It's happened, several times.

Speaking of not wanting to contribute anymore ... but no doubt many consider my absence to be an improvement.

Eric Corbett wrote:

Kumioko wrote:If the block was for behavioral issues that's one thing but if it's just because the editor annoyed some admin, like one that threatened them with a block if they didn't leave their articles alone, that could cause them to be resentful of the entire project, not want to contribute anymore and turn to vandalism and trolling the project instead of useful contributions. It's happened, several times.

Speaking of not wanting to contribute anymore ... but no doubt many consider my absence to be an improvement.

In fairness that's always going to be true. There's always going to be some haters but by and large you've been a bet positive. Most if not all the FAs you improved would still be start class or less. But I certainly u derstand you're desire not to edit anymore. If I didnt have to fight my ban out of principle I probably would have stopped participating years ago. The project nor the community isn't what it used to be. I didnt start editing to be involved in political activism and that seems to be the focus of the WMF these days.

Kumioko wrote:

Eric Corbett wrote:

Kumioko wrote:If the block was for behavioral issues that's one thing but if it's just because the editor annoyed some admin, like one that threatened them with a block if they didn't leave their articles alone, that could cause them to be resentful of the entire project, not want to contribute anymore and turn to vandalism and trolling the project instead of useful contributions. It's happened, several times.

Speaking of not wanting to contribute anymore ... but no doubt many consider my absence to be an improvement.

In fairness that's always going to be true. There's always going to be some haters but by and large you've been a bet positive. Most if not all the FAs you improved would still be start class or less. But I certainly u derstand you're desire not to edit anymore. If I didnt have to fight my ban out of principle I probably would have stopped participating years ago. The project nor the community isn't what it used to be. I didnt start editing to be involved in political activism and that seems to be the focus of the WMF these days.

There seems to be a meme that all I did was improve stuff, added nothing of any real substance myself. But what about The Green Child? Or the Manchester Mummy? Or the Samlesbury witches? Or Peterloo Massacre, to which I contributed the most edits and added the most text? Or ... just because I often chose to help other editors, even those I didn't get along with, that seems to have been interpreted as me being incapable of original thought or creativity.

I didnt mean to hit a nerve there Eric. It was intended to be a compliment man. I know you created a lot too.

Kumioko wrote:I didnt mean to hit a nerve there Eric. It was intended to be a compliment man. I know you created a lot too.

No worries, it's just that I've seen that a lot.

Eric Corbett wrote: There seems to be a meme that all I did was improve stuff, added nothing of any real substance myself. But what about The Green Child? Or the Manchester Mummy? Or the Samlesbury witches? Or Peterloo Massacre, to which I contributed the most edits and added the most text? Or ... just because I often chose to help other editors, even those I didn't get along with, that seems to have been interpreted as me being incapable of original thought or creativity.

Can you desribe to me what where the problems you where facing, Eric, and what the reason was for you to leave? i don't know you as a editor, but what went wrong and why?

Blocking people on "the encyclopedia anyone can edit", which goes out of its way to enable the most people to edit (whether or not they should) is a complete waste of time. Their basic platform encourages trolls, vandals and POV warriors.

Of course, you can't block a person, only an account or an IP. Anyone can find a new IP or create a new account or preferebly both. And blocking IPs very often causes collateral damage. It is almost impossible to edit from a public library in London these days, so if you go to a library with the intention of researching an article, bad luck.

Poetlister wrote:Of course, you can't block a person, only an account or an IP.

Did you know you can also block an entire country?

Check it out -- I'm pretty sure there's a country in the Middle East where everyone uses the same IP.

WhoReallyCares wrote:Did you know you can also block an entire country?
Check it out -- I'm pretty sure there's a country in the Middle East where everyone uses the same IP.

You might be remembering this, from 2006:

The Atlantic wrote:Qatar's weakness is that the nation only has a single ISP provider, Qtel.
...
...a single ISP poses risks in the event of deliberate bans by certain sites. In 2006, Wikipedia blocked the IP address of Qtel's proxy server from editing the site after a series of anonymous incidents of vandalism and spam in December 2006. The block kept nearly the entire nation off of Wikipedia.

Jim wrote:

WhoReallyCares wrote:Did you know you can also block an entire country?
Check it out -- I'm pretty sure there's a country in the Middle East where everyone uses the same IP.

You might be remembering this, from 2006:

The Atlantic wrote:Qatar's weakness is that the nation only has a single ISP provider, Qtel.
...
...a single ISP poses risks in the event of deliberate bans by certain sites. In 2006, Wikipedia blocked the IP address of Qtel's proxy server from editing the site after a series of anonymous incidents of vandalism and spam in December 2006. The block kept nearly the entire nation off of Wikipedia.

Interesting article, and it links to Wikipedia, too:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:82.148.97.69/header

As for the gormless peckerhead who blocked Qatar, was it Oshwah? Wouldn't surprise me.

WhoReallyCares wrote:As for the gormless peckerhead who blocked Qatar, was it Oshwah? Wouldn't surprise me.

No, Oshwah didn't become an admin until 2016: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Oshwah 2 (T-H-L). As to who did block it - take your pick - it was blocked a few times: Block log...

The 82.148.97.69 (T-C-L) user page currently says:

This was formerly the IP address for the entire nation of Qatar. However, it made its last edit in 2008.

and that does seem to be the last date it edited.