Can we please get rid of it? The harm rather dramatically outweighs the good.
Jack (Sam Spade)
If we're getting rid of things, I'd much rather see AfD go.
-Snowspinner
On Sep 22, 2005, at 11:56 AM, Jack Lynch wrote:
Can we please get rid of it? The harm rather dramatically outweighs the good.
Jack (Sam Spade) _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 9/22/05, Jack Lynch jack.i.lynch@gmail.com wrote:
Can we please get rid of it? The harm rather dramatically outweighs the good.
Jack (Sam Spade)
Yes and no. there are cartian aspects of the auto blocker I'd like to see go. 1. The automatic 24 hour extension. 2. The inabilty to switch it off if you want to.
-- geni
There are no aspects of the autoblocker that I think are unmanagable.
-Snowspinner
On Sep 22, 2005, at 12:08 PM, geni wrote:
On 9/22/05, Jack Lynch jack.i.lynch@gmail.com wrote:
Can we please get rid of it? The harm rather dramatically outweighs the good.
Jack (Sam Spade)
Yes and no. there are cartian aspects of the auto blocker I'd like to see go. 1. The automatic 24 hour extension. 2. The inabilty to switch it off if you want to.
-- geni _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Snowspinner wrote:
There are no aspects of the autoblocker that I think are unmanagable.
-Snowspinner
On Sep 22, 2005, at 12:08 PM, geni wrote:
On 9/22/05, Jack Lynch jack.i.lynch@gmail.com wrote:
Can we please get rid of it? The harm rather dramatically outweighs the good.
Jack (Sam Spade)
Yes and no. there are cartian aspects of the auto blocker I'd like to see go. 1. The automatic 24 hour extension. 2. The inabilty to switch it off if you want to.
-- geni
Couldn't it be made so that the autoblocker only kicks in when [[Special:Userlogin]] is used? I mean, cookies can be copied and so on, but someone who's skilled enough to do that is probably skilled enough to change his IP as well.
--[[User:grm_wnr]]
I'm sure we could each think of some benefit or another it provides, but I daresay their is consensus that certain aspects of it are unfortunate. IMO a risk/gain ratio assessment makes it rather clear that the auto-blocker does far more harm than good.
As far as "unamanageable", in theory everything is managable, but the results I have seen havn't been managed well at all. I think we'd be far better off w/o a system requiring so much attention in order to get it right.
Jack (Sam Spade)
On 9/22/05, Jack Lynch jack.i.lynch@gmail.com wrote:
I'm sure we could each think of some benefit or another it provides, but I daresay their is consensus that certain aspects of it are unfortunate. IMO a risk/gain ratio assessment makes it rather clear that the auto-blocker does far more harm than good.
What are the harmful parts that you'd like to see eliminated? In my opinion, the 24 hour extension is harmful. The autoblock should end when the block it's based on ends. If an user tries to edit 5 minutes before their block expires, they should only have their IP autoblocked for 5 minutes, not 24 hours. In general, some form of autoblocking is necessary or blocked users will be able to simply log out and conitnue editing. Carbonite
On 9/22/05, Carbonite carbonite.wp@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/22/05, Jack Lynch jack.i.lynch@gmail.com wrote:
I'm sure we could each think of some benefit or another it provides, but I daresay their is consensus that certain aspects of it are unfortunate. IMO a risk/gain ratio assessment makes it rather clear that the auto-blocker does far more harm than good.
What are the harmful parts that you'd like to see eliminated? In my opinion, the 24 hour extension is harmful. The autoblock should end when the block it's based on ends. If an user tries to edit 5 minutes before their block expires, they should only have their IP autoblocked for 5 minutes, not 24 hours. In general, some form of autoblocking is necessary or blocked users will be able to simply log out and conitnue editing. Carbonite _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
If they do, they can be blocked again, or their IP blocked. I don't see the need for an auto-blocker. Also, it needlessly antagonises a user to block them yet longer when they are often unaware they have been blocked, or assume the block is over with. Frankly, I am confused as to what the upside in all this is.If a user sneakilly logs in anonymously and makes acceptable edits, who cares? And if they resume where they left off or otherwise make trouble, that will be pretty obvious, won't it? They can simply be blocked then, and their IP blocked if there appears a need.
Jack (Sam Spade)
On 9/22/05, Jack Lynch jack.i.lynch@gmail.com wrote:
If they do, they can be blocked again, or their IP blocked. I don't see the need for an auto-blocker. Also, it needlessly antagonises a user to block them yet longer when they are often unaware they have been blocked, or assume the block is over with. Frankly, I am confused as to what the upside in all this is.If a user sneakilly logs in anonymously and makes acceptable edits, who cares? And if they resume where they left off or otherwise make trouble, that will be pretty obvious, won't it? They can simply be blocked then, and their IP blocked if there appears a need.
Jack (Sam Spade)
It prevents vandles logginf out and going after a completely different set of articels. However for blocks on the 3RR and the like it makes no sense.
-- geni
From: Jack Lynch jack.i.lynch@gmail.com
In general, some form of autoblocking is necessary or blocked users will be able to simply log out and conitnue editing. Carbonite
If they do, they can be blocked again, or their IP blocked.
Assuming you know for sure that it is them. But of course, you can't know that if you don't know their IP, or if they use a sockpuppet. And not everyone is an admin to be able to block sockpuppets when they show up.
Frankly, I am confused as to what the upside in all this is.If a user sneakilly logs in anonymously and makes acceptable edits, who cares? And if they resume where they left off or otherwise make trouble, that will be pretty obvious, won't it? They can simply be blocked then, and their IP blocked if there appears a need.
You'd think, wouldn't you? And yet, that's not always the case; quite often all sorts of IPs and new accounts show up to revert for someone who is blocked, all insisting that they are not sockpuppets at all, but merely disintersted third parties who happened to stumble on to the conflict and decided that their first edit should be a revert. One person who has been consistently e-mailing this list (including today) was involved in exactly such a war, and insists to this day that none of the IPs and new accounts were sockpuppets.
Jay.
I understand, but how does the auto-blocker help w that?
Jack (Sam Spade)
On 9/23/05, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
From: Jack Lynch jack.i.lynch@gmail.com
In general, some form of autoblocking is necessary or blocked users will be able to simply log out and conitnue editing. Carbonite
If they do, they can be blocked again, or their IP blocked.
Assuming you know for sure that it is them. But of course, you can't know that if you don't know their IP, or if they use a sockpuppet. And not everyone is an admin to be able to block sockpuppets when they show up.
Frankly, I am confused as to what the upside in all this is.If a user sneakilly logs in anonymously and makes acceptable edits, who cares? And if they resume where they left off or otherwise make trouble, that will be pretty obvious, won't it? They can simply be blocked then, and their IP blocked if there appears a need.
You'd think, wouldn't you? And yet, that's not always the case; quite often all sorts of IPs and new accounts show up to revert for someone who is blocked, all insisting that they are not sockpuppets at all, but merely disintersted third parties who happened to stumble on to the conflict and decided that their first edit should be a revert. One person who has been consistently e-mailing this list (including today) was involved in exactly such a war, and insists to this day that none of the IPs and new accounts were sockpuppets.
Jay.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
From: Jack Lynch jack.i.lynch@gmail.com
I understand, but how does the auto-blocker help w that?
Well, you're right in that it doesn't help with those sophisticated enough to have a bunch of different "independent" IPs show up to revert for them. However, it does help with those who simply create a new account when blocked (assuming the don't change IP as well, which many don't do).
Jay.
My thought is that those who do this and are disruptive will likely have the new account blocked. If their not disruptive or revert waring, its no big deal (blocks are ment for punishment, are they?), but if someone starts creating loads of accounts, and is shown to have been using sockpuppets, the are a rather large problem, and arbitration / blocking that IP would seem waranted.
Normally were talking about users who've gotten a bit too excitable w reverts, or spoke in hasty anger and etc..., not some sort of internet terrorist out to wreck meyhem.
What I'm saying is their arn't ''many'' concievable benefits to the auto-blocker (I agree there are some), but their are alot of obvious downsides. Being blocked is hard enough on an editor, but the autoblocker adds insult and injury both.
Jack (Sam Spade)
On 9/23/05, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
From: Jack Lynch jack.i.lynch@gmail.com
I understand, but how does the auto-blocker help w that?
Well, you're right in that it doesn't help with those sophisticated enough to have a bunch of different "independent" IPs show up to revert for them. However, it does help with those who simply create a new account when blocked (assuming the don't change IP as well, which many don't do).
Jay.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
geni wrote:
Yes and no. there are cartian aspects of the auto blocker I'd like to see go. 1. The automatic 24 hour extension.
That's been fixed, at least for short blocks. I was blocked recently for an hour and the autoblocker only got me for 56 minutes or so, however much was left of the hour.
- The inabilty to switch it off if you want to.
From: geni geniice@gmail.com
On 9/22/05, Jack Lynch jack.i.lynch@gmail.com wrote:
Can we please get rid of it? The harm rather dramatically outweighs the
good.
Jack (Sam Spade)
Yes and no. there are cartian aspects of the auto blocker I'd like to see go. 1. The automatic 24 hour extension. 2. The inabilty to switch it off if you want to.
It's reasonably good at catching sockpuppets, which are often created when a primary account is blocked.
Jay.