Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 158 Stack Exchange communities.

What is meta?
Here's how it works:
  1. Any Stack Exchange user can ask a question
  2. The community provides support, votes on ideas, and reports bugs
  3. Your voice helps shape the way Stack Exchange operates

Possible Duplicates:
Create a blacklist to keep from seeing certain users.
Mark a user as not being able to edit your question

A lot of time was wasted on "Edit wars" and in some cases undesired edits still occur. It is unfortunate that there are personality clashes, but it happens - even on a site like SO.

I propose that SO allow a user to block some small number of users (perhaps that is determined by their hitpoints, or other score. ) from:

  • editing their questions
  • editing their answers
  • voting on their questions
  • voting on their answers

In turn, the user who elected this is also blocked from the other user.

To discourage this perhaps it would cost the user some hitpoints for this functionality.

I think it would reduce some overall friction and "meta" from the SO site.

In spite of Jeff and Joel refusing to allow SO to be a "Social" site (and I agree with that decision) there is no denying that it has significant social aspects - the good, the bad and neutral.

This suggestion for functionality is intended to keep some personalities from chafing others.

It shouldn't be used widely or without good reason, but I think it can be useful.

share|improve this question

marked as duplicate by Shog9, Marc Gravell Jul 22 '09 at 21:12

This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.

This has been asked before, don't have direct links... I'm guessing this will be frowned upon... – RSolberg Jul 22 '09 at 21:07
Duplicate - see:… – Shog9 Jul 22 '09 at 21:08
Same as RSolberg, looking for the link now.. – Ian Elliott Jul 22 '09 at 21:08
Nvm! Shog is quick – Ian Elliott Jul 22 '09 at 21:08
I think you mean… ;-p – Marc Gravell Jul 22 '09 at 21:13
There ya go...I couldn't find that for the life of me. – jjnguy Jul 22 '09 at 21:15
I thought I provided enough additional suggestions and details for how it would work to stand on its own. Those other questions don't provide that. They just present the problem. – tim Jul 22 '09 at 21:15
Actually, i picked Sasha's question because it encompassed more than just editing - voting was also included, matching this question more precisely. No matter; both are bad ideas. – Shog9 Jul 22 '09 at 21:16
So add the the existing post; however, I can pretty much predict that this is going to be status-declined for the foreseeable future. – Marc Gravell Jul 22 '09 at 21:16
I could see how this could reduce friction. However it would just create more animosity between certain users, and overall augment the problem. – jjnguy Jul 22 '09 at 21:19
declined for "dupe" – Joel Coehoorn Jul 22 '09 at 22:10
up vote 0 down vote accepted

One of the community members created a greasemonkey script that will hide users from your view. It wouldn't stop them from answering, editing, or commenting, but you wouldn't have to see it.

I'm torn on this because it does take away from the community aspect of the site, but at the same time, your experience is already getting hijacked... Feel free to take a look...

Ignore Users Script

share|improve this answer

My Favorite. From the FAQ:

Other people can edit my stuff?!

Like Wikipedia, this site is collaboratively edited. If you are not comfortable with the idea of your questions and answers being edited by other trusted users, this may not be the site for you.

share|improve this answer
++I usually avoid voting on answers to duplicates, but this is pithy enough to deserve it... – Shog9 Jul 22 '09 at 21:12
Ha, thanks @shog – jjnguy Jul 22 '09 at 21:13
I don;t mind the editing - however there continues to be a lot of activity and complaints (mostly around a small subset of people) - rather than continually having these "Wars" every now and then, it can all be resolved with this suggestion. You can;t tell me that you haven't noticed. – tim Jul 22 '09 at 21:19
I know exactly what you are talking about. However, from my point of view, the subset of users that are problematic is too small for this feature to be necessary. – jjnguy Jul 22 '09 at 21:20
Again, note that I actually addressed some of the concerns raised int he other duplicates. It could cost hitpoints to enable it and you would have to have a certain amount. It would surely limit lots of the bickering in comments and editing. – tim Jul 22 '09 at 21:20
Actually, it is GOOD that the subset is so small, but the problem is that subset is very prolific and affects A LOT of people... – tim Jul 22 '09 at 21:21
Very few edits are truly detrimental. It seems users are personally offended to have their posts changed, when it should hardly ever be brought to that level. Sure some users edit a lot of posts, but I don't see how that becomes harassment. – Ian Elliott Jul 22 '09 at 21:23
I see how it could be helpful. And I agree that your solution is better than others and seems fairly well developed. I guess I just disagree with it at a fundamental level. I prefer to just ignore the problematic users. And, if they are causing real harm, alert the moderators. – jjnguy Jul 22 '09 at 21:26
@jjnguy "And, if they are causing real harm, alert the moderators" I think the moderators have been called in again and again. Yet this problem never goes away and continues to irk people - and I'm not just talking about people not liking edits – tim Jul 22 '09 at 21:32
@jjnguy: that last line is key - isolating yourself from the site only protects you ; if there's a real problem with a rogue voter or editor, it should be an administrative problem. Otherwise, you're just giving rogue users a tool to shield themselves from the inevitable consequences of their actions... – Shog9 Jul 22 '09 at 21:33
It is very telling that this request has been requested multiple times and from what I can tell - for exactly the same subset of people... Rather than deal with that, the proposers of the functionality are labeled "anti-community". I don;t think that is quite accurate - I think my suggestion addressed the community as a whole. Wouldn't it be nicer not to have to watch edit wars and pissing contests? – tim Jul 22 '09 at 21:34
@tim I find it is easy enough to stay out of the edit wars and pissing contests. Just ignore it. It sounds really idealistic I know. But, if you don't like what people are saying or doing, just leave it be. (Unless it is harmful, alert moderators. If they feel it is posing a threat to the community, they will deal with it. Until then, it must not be a big enough problem) – jjnguy Jul 22 '09 at 21:38
@tim: i'm curious now... when's the last time you saw an edit war? – Shog9 Jul 22 '09 at 21:38
The impetus for my suggestion was actually editing paired with downvoting for a bunch of of my posts. I really don't care about the hitpoints and the editing was actually beneficial, but there was something about the systematic nature of downvoting all my posts that made me less happy with SO. When I looked into the recent history of this person I saw a lot of moaning and grumbling and public bickering with other users - so I figured that even if I had just kind of let this go that others would benefit. THis person leaves a wake of unhappy users in his path... I figured it was one option. – tim Jul 22 '09 at 21:44
It is a viable option to report voting abuse. I know that it pisses me off when I get downvotes so people can move their answers up on the page. – jjnguy Jul 22 '09 at 21:46

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .