The problem with opt-out is that a wiki must know
this
even *exists* in order to opt-out. So if you are
capable of notifing all the village pumps in a
language they can comprehend, this is reasonable. If
you are not capable of that, opt-out is not
reasonable. If this is mainly for wiki's with no
community, then allow stewards to "opt-in" such
wiki's. If they have no community, they will not
object.
Birgitte SB
--- effe iets anders <effeietsanders(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,
I agree with your concerns. However, currently a
similar system is
already active, proxyblocker. This system blocks
some (I dont know how
many) proxies, detected somewhere in 2005. Dont
worry, no new blocks
are being added, but some are still in place. The
user just gets a
message that he is blocked by proxyblocker. We could
pick a logical
name to appear in the message, that would point to
meta. Maybe
CrosswikiBlocker, or VandalbotBlocker or something.
Opt-in is not workable. This new thing is mainly for
wiki's with no
community. You can only opt in if you have a
community. Hence, opt in
would not work. After all, the stewards mainly have
to block bots on
wiki's with no or almost no normal edits. when there
are people
around, and they have sysops and a community, they
can handle it
themselves generally. However, I would plea for
opt-out.
For the unblocking, I do not think that should be a
major issue, if we
would choose for a maximum of a block in the range
of 1 day-1week. In
that case, the chance that someone is affected by
that block, but is
not the person who was doing the malicious edits, is
quite slim.
Furthermore, that person will survive to wait a day
or a week, no big
harm done. If it proofs to be a major blocker for a
specific
community, ie they would only have one IP for a
whole country or
something, they could opt out.
BR, Eia
2008/1/31, Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb(a)yahoo.com>om>:
--- Andrew Gray <shimgray(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On 31/01/2008, Birgitte SB
<birgitte_sb(a)yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> > This is the key problem. I
think that unless
we
> are
> > capable of notifing all wikis of about the
> workings of
> > this process in a language they are proficient
> taking
> > blocks Wikimedia wide will cause a lot of
harm.
> Of
> > course an opt-in system would be very
workable.
> Would logging it in the local block-log system
be an
acceptable method
of notification?
I was more thinking first about a notification
that
this ability even *exists* before addressing
notification individual blocks. However regarding
individual blocks what language are you proposing
the
local log entry be written in?
The only reasonable way to do this is to have the
log
entries be a consistent pre-arranged formula
that
links to a local page explaining the system in the
local language. The best way to ensure that all
this
is set-up is to use an opt-in system that
requires
these things be set-up before blocks .
Anything else means some wiki(s) will wake up one
day
to realize there are inexplicable blocks in
place.
Likely with logs entries they cannot read. And
very
likely when they start making inquiries no one
will be
able to explain what has happened to them own
language
leading to further misunderstandings.
Seriously make a system to handle these blocks and
require every wiki wishing to join the system file
a
bug and things will go much more smoothly. If
the
stewards find they are doing tedious manual blocks
on
a certain wiki, they can encourage the that wiki
to
file the bug.
Birgitte SB
____________________________________________________________________________________
Looking
for last minute shopping deals?
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.