Miscellaneous desk
< February 9	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 11 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

February 10

Like how Reddit has bans specific only to subreddits, why doesn't Wikipedia have mini-blocks specific only to specific articles?

Like, if someone engages in an edit war in one article, but edits like a model contributor everywhere else, they shouldn't suffer a site-wide block.

They only need to be blocked from the one article that they edit-war on.

Otherwise, their new, valuable contributions to other articles don't get to be made because the block is site-wide.

So why shouldn't Wikipedia adopt the Reddit model of blocking by giving editors article-blocks for specific articles where they have problems in, like how Redditors are given bans for specific subreddits? --172.124.128.102 (talk) 20:16, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Three-part answer for the benefit of good-faith editors. First, Reddit uses different software than Wikipedia. The Wikipedia software, which supports an encyclopedia of 5.8 million articles (and will scale to an even larger encyclopedia, does not support blocks on an article-by-article basis. Subreddits do not correspond to individual articles. Second, Wikipedia does support the locking of articles on an article-by-article basis, and this is a common way to dealing with edit wars. Third, see topic-bans, which are not self-enforcing, but an editor who ignores a topic-ban will soon become a banned editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:19, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you are asking because you have been blocked, editing from an IP is block evasion, and is a way to get your block extended, not to work around it. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:19, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if the behavior is egregious enough on one article to lead to a ban, it is reasonable to suppose that the editor may behave just as badly on other articles. Apparently good edits on other articles may be simple attempts to lull others into believing that a dedicated vandal is a productive editor or they may even be unrecognized bad edits (false sources or misrepresented sources). Even if we could block individual editors from individual articles, at some point an editor that has been blocked on multiple articles would still need to be blocked wholesale. --Khajidha (talk) 12:27, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are varying and accelerating steps that can be taken to deal with abusive editing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:47, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Florida 2000 recount

Good evening, a question, if possible. The recount affecting only Gore and Bush, the candidates for president. But putting the ballots on the computers, how is it possible that the votes of the candidates to senator and deputy, have remained unchanged? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.41.100.198 (talk) 22:13, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They were specifically recounting for President. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:34, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. The systems were the Votomatic; evidently, there was a way to save and separate the other votes, and create a system that would allow only the votes for the president to be recounted, I think it will be like this ... Can this be my reasoning? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.41.100.198 (talk) 22:57, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Laws might vary from state to state, but in general, recounts are only done when required, and only for situations requiring them. Unless a candidate for another office in Florida had requested and been granted a recount, there would be no reason to do one. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:36, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I begin to understand each other more. The point is that being punched cards, there was not only the numbered hole for the president, but also for candidates from other offices. Returning the ballots in the machine, it is not possible that the other totals inevitably may have been modified, without anyone rightly asking for further recountings, because there was no need, outside of Bush and Gore? They must have made a "targeted" recount This passage is still unclear to me. Thanks again and I will try not to bother you anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.41.100.198 (talk) 00:00, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They wouldn't be tallying the other offices, only the president. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:12, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is some confusion about how the recount was done. They did not ask the computer to recount the votes. They took the paper ballots and counted them by hand. Humans picked up each ballot, looked at the holes where the President votes were located, and tallied up the vote count. They were given clear rules to throw out a ballot as well. For example, if two holes were punched, they didn't count the ballot because only one Presidential vote was allowed. What if one hole was partially punched and another was completely punched? Does the hanging chad on the partially punched hole count as a vote, resulting in a ballot that was ignored? At the time, "hanging chad" became a popular late-night punchline. But, all in all, you have rooms full of people going through ballots, one at a time, and counting how many holes were punched. Why would you think they would even examine the other votes on the ballot? 209.149.113.5 (talk) 13:00, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note though that at least from what I've read and heard long ago (but seemingly confirmed by our article), "hanging chad" wasn't just about cases where there was one hanging and one completely punched chad, it was also how to deal with cases where no holes were completely punched but one was hanging or otherwise apparently partially punched. Should this be treated as a "vote" for whatever was partially punched, or is there too much risk that it was an accident from mishandling either from the voter or the people involved in the countings? Of course there's various possible levels of partially punched, our article lists several different names besides hanging, and a ballot paper could have multiple different votes which seemed partially punched to different levels complicating things more. Our article links to Bush v. Gore where a two-corner chad rule is mentioned in a footnote. Nil Einne (talk) 08:38, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much, Guys. Regarding the machine recount of the ballots, the latter, probably, have only been re-examined by the "positions" of the candidates for President. The computers have been reprogrammed this way. Then there was the manual count, in that electoral odyssey!, in that electoral odyssey! Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.41.100.198 (talk) 14:52, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Have you not been paying attention? The entire point is that there was no machine recount. Or computer reprogramming. And who is "he"? --Khajidha (talk) 15:11, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, if you do not pay attention. The difference was less than 0.5% of the votes; and this, by the laws of Florida, means automatic recount, rigorously machine (Votomatic). Have you seen the 2008 movie "Recount"? He explains it very well. And it shows, above all. I corrected the previous error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.41.100.198 (talk) 15:23, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't base your understanding of any historical event on a Hollywood "re-enactment" of it. Recount was based on the 2000 election, but as noted in our article, like all dramatic re-enactments, there were inaccuracies, mostly because the purpose of a film is to entertain, and film-makers will play fast and loose with actual facts if it serves the narrative. Every Hollywood "based on a true story" movie suffers from this, which is why they should never be looked at to understand history. Anything they do get "correct" should be assumed to be correct purely by accident, and if you want to know the real history of anything, go to real historians and real historical sources. That being said, I don't know whether or not the mechanics of the 2000 recount as depicted in the film were one of the things they accidentally got correct or not, I am just cautioning you to never assume any second of any such film is correct unless you've verified it with an actual scholarly source first (at which point, the film would be redundant anyways, since the real source is the only thing you should place your trust in.) --Jayron 32 16:01, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All right, let's leave the movie, but check out this page. Toh, it's from Wikipedia. With lots of sources. I do not need movies, and things do not even invent them. That's okay. I bring you the paragraph; not for the paragraph itself, but for the sources themselves, otherwise the text could not be there. "On November 8, 2000, the Florida Division of Elections reported that Bush won with 48.8% of the vote in Florida, a margin of victory of 1,784 votes.[4] The margin of victory was less than 0.5% of the votes cast, so a statutorily-mandated[5] automatic machine recount occurred. On November 10, with the machine recount finished in all but one county, Bush's margin of victory had decreased to 327.[6]" (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.41.100.198 (talk) 16:16, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. And? --Jayron 32 17:49, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I solved. I did not want to make controversy. All the best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.41.100.198 (talk) 20:43, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]