Wikipedia talk:Block on demand

I am in favour of this -- if only because it seems that some people do not shun away from serious disruption only to have themselves blocked, rather than taking responsibility for themselves of how much time they want to spend here. The technical side could be addressed with standard summaries ("block on demand"), that could be filtered out from the blocklist, optionally. The real problem would be autoblocks of IP addresses associated with requested blocks. That's a problem we have with vandalism blocks already, but we would need to establish how big the impact of this would be. I don't know how "intelligent" the autoblocker is. dab (ᛏ) 08:55, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shame we can't turn off the autoblocker for individual blocks. Incidentally, I'm having fun already imagining the vandalism at WP:RFB. JRM · Talk 10:16, 2005 May 11 (UTC)

Could someone please explain why one would want one's account blocked for taking a vacation? If one does not login for a week, that would be easier. Radiant_* 13:29, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
- I would say Wikipedia is at least as powerful as pornography addiction, and it is becoming as widespread. It's like crack cocaine for the mind. 205.217.105.2 16:34, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, we already have a Wikipediholic support group. I don't know any developer who would even consider working on this, when there are so many more important things they could be doing. -- Netoholic @ 15:40, 2005 May 11 (UTC)

Huh? Why would developers have anything to do with this? This is all within the range of standard admin abilities. In fact, we could just allow such notices to be posted on the Administrator's Noticeboard, or some other page linked to from Wikipedia:Requests for sysop attention. No developers needed here. JRM · Talk 15:41, 2005 May 11 (UTC)

Blocking users leads to auto-blocks of the IP's that account recently used, sometimes unintentionally blocking legitimate users. A developer would need to fix the code to block by account only (still an open bugzilla:1294 on this). Also, to avoid flooding the block log with these voluntary blocks, we'd need some sort of filter. People should just learn some self-control. -- Netoholic @ 15:59, 2005 May 11 (UTC)

Re autoblock: yes, that might need a technical enhancement—or just knowledgeable admins exercising care, as they do now. Re flooding: I honestly don't believe this feature would see so much use that you'd have trouble making sense of the block log, and likewise don't think a filter is needed. Re self-control: that is a viable implementation too. I know that I don't need this feature. JRM · Talk 16:12, 2005 May 11 (UTC)

The autoblock problems would also be caused by those who provoke blocks on purpose, and then login on another computer with the banned account. This problem does not apply to blocked IP addresses, of course. Some of these vandals, I have to think that they must be intentionally provoking a block. User:Featured Article Thrasher, for instance. Why else would anyone use a name so highly visible to watchlisters and RC patrollers? 205.217.105.2 16:40, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In theory: I like it. In actuality: get a life, people. If you need other people to prevent you from doing something on the Net, you've got deeper problems than Wikipedia can help you with. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 03:18, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if it helps stop people vandalizing to force a block, I like it. But we still have the problems of autoblocks remaining and if they really want to, the blocked people could edit anonymously from another machine... Addicts will find a way if they need to edit... Mgm|^(talk) 07:25, May 12, 2005 (UTC)