This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pirate Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pirate Politics articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
I've replaced the unsourced content, in violation of WP:SELF, with sourced content about "blocking" as used outside of Wikipedia. If editor(s) wish to add discussion of Wikipedia practices they should add references. Nobody Ent 13:40, 17 June 2012 (UTC) Note the disambig page contains the appropriate link to Wikipedia blocking, so editors looking for Wikipedia, as opposed to rest of the world, blocking, can easily find it. Nobody Ent 14:02, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
I think the content you removed was perhaps written from a Wikipedia-centric point of view, but it was not really a violation of WP:SELF (since it did not mention Wikipedia specifically, and it could well be relevant to other sites). Regardless of this, if the deleted text (or any other information) is going to be added to the article, some references really should be found. — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:29, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Well, sort of. While it didn't say "Wikipedia" it was obviously describing how Wikipedia does things. But the point is valid and I've added a mention of server side blocking. Nobody Ent 09:50, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
I too am of the opinion that what you removed didn't violate [[WP:SELF]. Yes, that's the way it works on Wikipedia, but it's also the way it works on every other MediaWiki wiki, several other types of wiki (at least, I don't have experience of most other wiki software) and is similar to the way it's done on at least some forum software. Yes, it could do with improved phrasing and referencing, but that doesn't require removal. I'll see what I can do to work it back in. Thryduulf (talk) 16:44, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Next time I'm on a proper (ie not GPRS) connection that isn't configured so badly that 2 out of 3 attempts to load pages on google, yahoo, bing and duckduckgo (and 9 out of 10 on Facebook) times out, then I'll see what I can do. Please feel free to add some yourself in the meanwhile. I don't think that there is anything I added that isn't either fairly easily citeable or trivially tightened up into something that is. Thryduulf (talk) 23:50, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Removed content (it's been 11 days). If we are to have an encyclopedia article about wikipedia style blocking it needs to be supported by outside reliable sources. Nobody Ent 23:52, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
"Blocking and its inverse, unblocking, may be implemented by the owners of computers using software." That sentence might lead a reader to think that software could be available to them that unblocks their access to sites that are censored in the country where they are located. The previous version ""Blocking may be implemented by the owners of computers using software." is not only correct, but corresponds to the topic of the page. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 16:31, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Almost no discussion of Internet banning in discussion places
The current page describes computer security blocks placed on IPs by servers. It doesn't describe the use of bans in the governance of discussion spaces at all - something that it should really do. I added a paragraph, but if anyone else has sources and material, please add more?