New Partial block model policy

[Eric Corbett]

Eric: could you do your middle-finger flinging in a thread where it's not off-topic, please? Preferably PM? This forum is not for the purpose to satisfy your need for attention.

My point quite simply is that this partial block model is of less use than a partial tool policy for admins would be, but it's far easier to bash editors than to do anything to really address Wikipedia's problems with the admin-for-life culture. I don't see how you or anyone else could consider that to be off topic.

[Vigilant]

Anyway, don't worry folks, if he keeps up with this line of argument I'll split the thread, at the very least.

You ought to know by now that there is absolutely no point in attempting to threaten me with anything, it just doesn't work.

Under the righteous rule of Abd, this refusal to honor the right to administrate would not stand!

My suggestion is to send Eric to play with the other chromosomally superabundant over at sucks.

[Midsize Jake]

You ought to know by now that there is absolutely no point in attempting to threaten me with anything, it just doesn't work.

If you're interpreting a possible thread split as some kind of personal threat, then I'd say we're close to understanding what your problem with multi-user collaborative websites has been all along.

[Eric Corbett]

You ought to know by now that there is absolutely no point in attempting to threaten me with anything, it just doesn't work.

If you're interpreting a possible thread split as some kind of personal threat, then I'd say we're close to understanding what your problem with multi-user collaborative websites has been all along.

If you're going to keep reinventing history to suit your narrative you'll need a more reliable memory. What you said was "I'll split the thread, at the very least". How is that to be interpreted?

[Poetlister]

If you're going to keep reinventing history to suit your narrative you'll need a more reliable memory. What you said was "I'll split the thread, at the very least". How is that to be interpreted?

I took it to mean that he might delete several posts. That isn't going to hurt anyone all that badly.

[Vigilant]

You ought to know by now that there is absolutely no point in attempting to threaten me with anything, it just doesn't work.

If you're interpreting a possible thread split as some kind of personal threat, then I'd say we're close to understanding what your problem with multi-user collaborative websites has been all along.

The question to ask yourself is, "What time is it in Manchester?"

[Midsize Jake]

If you're going to keep reinventing history to suit your narrative you'll need a more reliable memory. What you said was "I'll split the thread, at the very least". How is that to be interpreted?

Hmm, I guess that's fair. What I meant was, that was the least I might do with the thread itself (i.e., I could also delete the offending parts of it, or even go with the "nuclear option" of adding Spiderman memes to various posts at random). But given your Wikipedia experiences, I can certainly see how you might draw a different conclusion. So, I apologize for all that.

That said, this whole business of insisting on a hyper-literalist definition of "unblockable" remains, shall we say, a bit wearisome.

[Eric Corbett]

We can at least agree on all of that. I won't mention the topic of unblockables again.

[Beeblebrox]

getting back on topic, it seems at least one partial block has now been done.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... y_blocked)

Two edit warriors are blocked only from the article where they were edit warring.

[Osborne]

getting back on topic, it seems at least one partial block has now been done.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... y_blocked)
Two edit warriors are blocked only from the article where they were edit warring.

That's a good call. Time for celebration!

[Ritchie333]

getting back on topic, it seems at least one partial block has now been done.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... y_blocked)
Two edit warriors are blocked only from the article where they were edit warring.

That's a good call. Time for celebration!

Thanks for the support, chaps, but I can foresee incidents where I would call for a partial block versus another admin who thinks a full site ban is required because "that's the way we do things around here".

[Boing! said Zebedee]

What we need is to split up admin powers, so some people only have block/unblock, others have article protection or ability to bestow rollback and so on. Each needs a separate RfA. This would give hat collectors the chance to get six hats while acquiring full admin rights instead of only one hat, and those who treat Wikipedia as a spectator sport the opportunity to see far more RfAs.

And rename it "Request for Hat", WP:RfH.

[Eric Corbett]

What we need is to split up admin powers, so some people only have block/unblock, others have article protection or ability to bestow rollback and so on. Each needs a separate RfA. This would give hat collectors the chance to get six hats while acquiring full admin rights instead of only one hat, and those who treat Wikipedia as a spectator sport the opportunity to see far more RfAs.

And rename it "Request for Hat", WP:RfH.

There are already "Requests for Hat". Requests for rollback, which nobody really needs, and template editor spring immediately to mind, the latter of which is granted automatically to every administrator regardless of their competence to actually edit anything.

The truth is that bundling all the admin rights together in the way that they have been is simply laziness on the part of the developers. The only admin right the WMF cares about is the ability to see deleted content; split that out and then everything becomes much easier.

[Poetlister]

I like the system on Wikibooks, where any editor who meets various criteria automatically gets rollback and the ability to authorise pending edits. Also, I think all articles have pending edits, which is another good idea.

[Beeblebrox]

I am probably the most liberal admin when it comes to granting rollback, because I don't think people should have to ask for it at all when for most Twinkle provides the same (in my opinion better) functionality. I tried a few years ago to get rollback made into a gadget like Twinkle that you could just turn on yourself, but got pushed back against because rollback is "too powerful and dangerous" for that.

[Poetlister]

I tried a few years ago to get rollback made into a gadget like Twinkle that you could just turn on yourself, but got pushed back against because rollback is "too powerful and dangerous" for that.

And Twinkle isn't?

[Beeblebrox]

I tried a few years ago to get rollback made into a gadget like Twinkle that you could just turn on yourself, but got pushed back against because rollback is "too powerful and dangerous" for that.

And Twinkle isn't?

That was the argument. Obviously I did not agree.

[Osborne]

Thanks for the support, chaps, but I can foresee incidents where I would call for a partial block versus another admin who thinks a full site ban is required because "that's the way we do things around here".

"The way we do things" (a small group of editors) created a toxic editing culture, where the everyday experience includes incivility, bullying, harassment; not from noname editors - those get indeffed quickly -, but from established editors, including well-known administrators. This is what the community wants? I think it's an illusion created by a handful of influential and pushy editors. There is a significant will in the movement to change the way things are, for the better.
The only reason not to change is the comfort of the power that full-site blocks give. Among all the unrealistic speculations that were invented to undermine partial blocks, the only credible motivation that surfaces is their will to keep that power.

Fortunately, the online communities and - lagging behind - the wikipedia community too, are changing towards a more humane culture. Hopefully, those who value their ways of dealing with stuff higher than the movement's values, will understand how to create a more civil editing environment or will leave that job to contributors with more good faith.

[Osborne]

I like the system on Wikibooks, where any editor who meets various criteria automatically gets rollback and the ability to authorise pending edits. Also, I think all articles have pending edits, which is another good idea.

All editors with >200 edits (arbitrary numbers) should be able to authorize pending edits (maybe it is like that...) and all edits by IPs and new (<100) editors should be pending edits. On all articles, with a 2 week timeout, after which it's automatically approved (for low-contrib articles).

There is an ongoing wmf project to develop a tool to categorize edits on their merits, that would be a more fine-graind solution to authorizing edits.

The truth is that bundling all the admin rights together in the way that they have been is simply laziness on the part of the developers. The only admin right the WMF cares about is the ability to see deleted content; split that out and then everything becomes much easier.

I totally agree on that, it takes more effort to distinguish roles. Wikipedia mixed and messed it up. It is like a government, where the janitors are the policy makers, the executors (police) and the judges too. A system that gives all the tools for abuse and to deny any accountability. Would you like to live in a system like that?

[Vigilant]

There is an ongoing wmf project to develop a tool to categorize edits on their merits, that would be a more fine-graind solution to authorizing edits.

This is an interesting idea in theory, but the WMF has shown itself utterly incapable of defining or building software.

[Osborne]

There is an ongoing wmf project to develop a tool to categorize edits on their merits, that would be a more fine-graind solution to authorizing edits.

This is an interesting idea in theory, but the WMF has shown itself utterly incapable of defining or building software.

We change every day and the wmf changes too. Maybe they get it right once. Along the way, there's a need for good faith, while also discussing the problems. It's a matter of balance.

[Poetlister]

I like the system on Wikibooks, where any editor who meets various criteria automatically gets rollback and the ability to authorise pending edits. Also, I think all articles have pending edits, which is another good idea.

All editors with >200 edits (arbitrary numbers) should be able to authorize pending edits (maybe it is like that...) and all edits by IPs and new (

[Poetlister]

I like the system on Wikibooks, where any editor who meets various criteria automatically gets rollback and the ability to authorise pending edits. Also, I think all articles have pending edits, which is another good idea.

All editors with >200 edits (arbitrary numbers) should be able to authorize pending edits (maybe it is like that...)

The WB system is more complex than that but the basic idea is sound. There needs to be more exchange of good ideas between the different sites.

[Boing! said Zebedee]

The truth is that bundling all the admin rights together in the way that they have been is simply laziness on the part of the developers. The only admin right the WMF cares about is the ability to see deleted content; split that out and then everything becomes much easier.

Yep. The idea that it's all or nothing and that only the select few are worthy and get all rights is absurd. And yes, it is indeed only the ability to see deleted content that has the WMF concerned about legalities and requires RfA or a similar process.

[Poetlister]

The truth is that bundling all the admin rights together in the way that they have been is simply laziness on the part of the developers. The only admin right the WMF cares about is the ability to see deleted content; split that out and then everything becomes much easier.

Yep. The idea that it's all or nothing and that only the select few are worthy and get all rights is absurd. And yes, it is indeed only the ability to see deleted content that has the WMF concerned about legalities and requires RfA or a similar process.

And of course what is split out varies between sites. For example, rollback is a separate right on relatively few sites.