This raises a related point: why does the autoblocker use the name of the admin that placed the original block? I realize there is a benefit to having a specific person to request an unblock from, but I also see a lot of abuse of this.
Anyone familiar with the constant AOL blocks of WBardwin will recognzie what happens: Rather than "Admin X, you blocked someone and I was autoblocked by mistake" the statement is always "Admin X, you blocked me. You should be more careful about autoblocking AOL IP's. You admins are always placing autoblocks against me and I can't get any work done." as if the blocking admin has any control over the autoblocker!
We can't see the IP of the person we are blocking, in order to know if it is an AOL IP, and we can't see the IP of anyone who is autoblocked (it is masked on the block list). Autoblocks don't show up in our blocklog, so the only recourse we have is to either not block anyone for any reason, or once we place a block, spend the rest of our lives refreshing the blocklist every thirty seconds in order to immediately unblock everyone who is ever autoblocked.
Can something be done to either 1) remove the admin's name from autoblocks, and/or 2) make autoblocked IPs visible both in the block list and the admins block log so that we can watch for AOL IP's? (Both would be the best solution.) As it is, all we can do is sit back and wait to be attacked for things that are completely out of our control.
Essjay
Mgm wrote:
Have you tried contacting Andrevan about this first? The blocking should always be the first person to go to if you're blocked.
--Mgm
8/20/05, Jack Lynch jack.i.lynch@gmail.com wrote:
You should see [[Wikipedia:Consensus]]. You seem to be thinking of unanimity. I can't speak to the rest of it.
Jack (Sam Spade)
On 8/20/05, Dai Grepher dai_grepher1051@yahoo.com wrote:
Hello, My user name is Dai Grepher, my I.P address is 68.41.169.128, I am
sending
this message because the administrator Andrevan has misused his abilities to block me from editing any page but my own for 24 hours. While I know that this is a temporary block, I still believe that Andrevan should be reprimanded for misuse of administrating privileges, and I believe that he will continue to misuse his powers unless he is reprimanded. The message I receive when trying to edit is as follows:
"User is blocked
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
You have attempted to edit a page, either by clicking the "edit this
page"
tab or by following a red link.
Your user name or IP address has been blocked by Andrevan.
The reason given is this: Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Dai
Grepher".
The reason given for Dai Grepher's block is: "Ignoring consensus, vandalizing user pages. Blocked for 24 hours, as warned."."
On the talk page found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Metroid:_Zero_Mission
I have respectfully stated that a consensus on the issue is not
applicable
to the article, since I have provided a substantial amount of evidence that disproves the popular theory and those that have voted have clearly ignored the facts that I have presented. Also, this consensus does not reach beyond the limits of Wikipedia to users holding a different belief and therefore does not represent the targeted fanbase. Under Wikipedia consensus policy, a consensus cannot be used to determine which side has "won" a dispute. It can only be used to see if there is a consensus, which there is not since I disagree with it and the opposition. Andrevan is using the consensus incorrectly as justification for changing the article to reflect his own opinion and also for blocking my account.
I have suggested that the article remain ambiguous, and not bias toward
their side or my own while dispute resolution takes its course. The others debating the issue and myself have agreed to contact mediators and arbitrators to resolve the issue fairly. Andrevan makes it clear on the Zero Mission talk page listed above that he believes the popular theory and has stated orders to change the article to directly contradict me (Dai Grepher, found under the: The article should not be ambiguous, section of the article), which shows a direct prejudice against my theory and a complete disregard of the facts that I have presented that at the very least seriously question the popular theory.
I have edited the article to be non-partisan and I have also made
additions
to the page, which by Wikipedia policy is not classified as a revert. Andrevan is the one who has reverted and vandalized the page by ignoring the NPOV policy. Also, Andrevan has not posted warnings of blocking my account on my talk page, as Wikipedia's policy for handling vandalism states. I however have posted these required steps on his talk page and also The Missing Link's talk page because they continue to change the article to be biased.
The second reason, an accusation that I have vandalized other user
pages is
untrue. Andrevan is misusing his powers to preserve his own personal belief, rather than protecting the page to be non-biased and allowing dispute resolution to take its course. By doing so, and blocking me, he is hindering the peaceful resolution of the dispute. I respectfully request that the administrator Andrevan be given the full reprimand that he deserves.
I urge you to please look into this matter at the talk page listed
above,
and handle the issue responsibly. Thank you very much.
-Dai Grepher
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
------------------------------
_________________________________________________________________ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
Yes, I agree with that.
On 8/21/05, Essjay -Wikipedia- essjay-wiki@hotmail.com wrote:
This raises a related point: why does the autoblocker use the name of the admin that placed the original block? I realize there is a benefit to having a specific person to request an unblock from, but I also see a lot of abuse of this.
Anyone familiar with the constant AOL blocks of WBardwin will recognzie what happens: Rather than "Admin X, you blocked someone and I was autoblocked by mistake" the statement is always "Admin X, you blocked me. You should be more careful about autoblocking AOL IP's. You admins are always placing autoblocks against me and I can't get any work done." as if the blocking admin has any control over the autoblocker!
We can't see the IP of the person we are blocking, in order to know if it is an AOL IP, and we can't see the IP of anyone who is autoblocked (it is masked on the block list). Autoblocks don't show up in our blocklog, so the only recourse we have is to either not block anyone for any reason, or once we place a block, spend the rest of our lives refreshing the blocklist every thirty seconds in order to immediately unblock everyone who is ever autoblocked.
Can something be done to either 1) remove the admin's name from autoblocks, and/or 2) make autoblocked IPs visible both in the block list and the admins block log so that we can watch for AOL IP's? (Both would be the best solution.) As it is, all we can do is sit back and wait to be attacked for things that are completely out of our control.
Essjay
Mgm wrote:
Have you tried contacting Andrevan about this first? The blocking should always be the first person to go to if you're blocked.
--Mgm
8/20/05, Jack Lynch jack.i.lynch@gmail.com wrote:
You should see [[Wikipedia:Consensus]]. You seem to be thinking of unanimity. I can't speak to the rest of it.
Jack (Sam Spade)
On 8/20/05, Dai Grepher dai_grepher1051@yahoo.com wrote:
Hello, My user name is Dai Grepher, my I.P address is 68.41.169.128, I am
sending
this message because the administrator Andrevan has misused his abilities to block me from editing any page but my own for 24 hours. While I know that this is a temporary block, I still believe that Andrevan should be reprimanded for misuse of administrating privileges, and I believe that he will continue to misuse his powers unless he is reprimanded. The message I receive when trying to edit is as follows:
"User is blocked
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
You have attempted to edit a page, either by clicking the "edit this
page"
tab or by following a red link.
Your user name or IP address has been blocked by Andrevan.
The reason given is this: Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Dai
Grepher".
The reason given for Dai Grepher's block is: "Ignoring consensus, vandalizing user pages. Blocked for 24 hours, as warned."."
On the talk page found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Metroid:_Zero_Mission
I have respectfully stated that a consensus on the issue is not
applicable
to the article, since I have provided a substantial amount of evidence that disproves the popular theory and those that have voted have clearly ignored the facts that I have presented. Also, this consensus does not reach beyond the limits of Wikipedia to users holding a different belief and therefore does not represent the targeted fanbase. Under Wikipedia consensus policy, a consensus cannot be used to determine which side has "won" a dispute. It can only be used to see if there is a consensus, which there is not since I disagree with it and the opposition. Andrevan is using the consensus incorrectly as justification for changing the article to reflect his own opinion and also for blocking my account.
I have suggested that the article remain ambiguous, and not bias toward
their side or my own while dispute resolution takes its course. The others debating the issue and myself have agreed to contact mediators and arbitrators to resolve the issue fairly. Andrevan makes it clear on the Zero Mission talk page listed above that he believes the popular theory and has stated orders to change the article to directly contradict me (Dai Grepher, found under the: The article should not be ambiguous, section of the article), which shows a direct prejudice against my theory and a complete disregard of the facts that I have presented that at the very least seriously question the popular theory.
I have edited the article to be non-partisan and I have also made
additions
to the page, which by Wikipedia policy is not classified as a revert. Andrevan is the one who has reverted and vandalized the page by ignoring the NPOV policy. Also, Andrevan has not posted warnings of blocking my account on my talk page, as Wikipedia's policy for handling vandalism states. I however have posted these required steps on his talk page and also The Missing Link's talk page because they continue to change the article to be biased.
The second reason, an accusation that I have vandalized other user
pages is
untrue. Andrevan is misusing his powers to preserve his own personal belief, rather than protecting the page to be non-biased and allowing dispute resolution to take its course. By doing so, and blocking me, he is hindering the peaceful resolution of the dispute. I respectfully request that the administrator Andrevan be given the full reprimand that he deserves.
I urge you to please look into this matter at the talk page listed
above,
and handle the issue responsibly. Thank you very much.
-Dai Grepher
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
ugh, please don't quote the entire text of the entire section of the thread in your reply unless absolutely necessary, it makes for an extremely long email
-Jtkiefer
Can something be done to either 1) remove the admin's name from autoblocks, and/or 2) make autoblocked IPs visible both in the block list and the admins block log so that we can watch for AOL IP's? (Both would be the best solution.) As it is, all we can do is sit back and wait to be attacked for things that are completely out of our control.
Essjay
1 no. Some need to be contacted. it might as well be the blocking admin 2 no. It makes it too easy to find people's IPs
On 21/08/05, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Can something be done to either 1) remove the admin's name from autoblocks, and/or 2) make autoblocked IPs visible both in the block list and the admins block log so that we can watch for AOL IP's? (Both would be the best solution.) As it is, all we can do is sit back and wait to be attacked for things that are completely out of our control.
Essjay
...but perhaps the autoblocker could be set not to block addresses in the AOL range. Someone could file a bug on that if they think it's a good idea.
Dan
From: Dan Grey dangrey@gmail.com
On 21/08/05, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Can something be done to either 1) remove the admin's name from
autoblocks,
and/or 2) make autoblocked IPs visible both in the block list and the
admins
block log so that we can watch for AOL IP's? (Both would be the best solution.) As it is, all we can do is sit back and wait to be attacked
for
things that are completely out of our control.
Essjay
...but perhaps the autoblocker could be set not to block addresses in the AOL range. Someone could file a bug on that if they think it's a good idea.
Dan
Given the amount of vandalism I see from AOL IPs, I sometimes wonder if Wikipedia wouldn't be better off banning the entire AOL range - it's essentially a giant anonymous proxy.
Jay.
Why is it ANY different? You get a free CD, you stick it in, you insert the codes, you evade any ban you want. When you unsubscribe, they send you even more free trials!
On 8/21/05, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
From: Dan Grey dangrey@gmail.com
On 21/08/05, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Can something be done to either 1) remove the admin's name from
autoblocks,
and/or 2) make autoblocked IPs visible both in the block list and the
admins
block log so that we can watch for AOL IP's? (Both would be the best solution.) As it is, all we can do is sit back and wait to be attacked
for
things that are completely out of our control.
Essjay
...but perhaps the autoblocker could be set not to block addresses in the AOL range. Someone could file a bug on that if they think it's a good idea.
Dan
Given the amount of vandalism I see from AOL IPs, I sometimes wonder if Wikipedia wouldn't be better off banning the entire AOL range - it's essentially a giant anonymous proxy.
Jay.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Given the amount of vandalism I see from AOL IPs, I sometimes wonder if Wikipedia wouldn't be better off banning the entire AOL range - it's essentially a giant anonymous proxy.
Jay.
That would be cutting off a amount of loyal users, of course. But I think it would be advantagous for any AOL users dedicated to Wikipedia just to get a new ISP. I do think there is a good idea in limiting AOL editing: a hefty amount of time and effort by RC patrollers goes into reverting simple vandalism from those ranges.
[[User:Bratsche|Ben]]
That would be cutting off a amount of loyal users, of course. But I think it would be advantagous for any AOL users dedicated to Wikipedia just to get a new ISP. I do think there is a good idea in limiting AOL editing: a hefty amount of time and effort by RC patrollers goes into reverting simple vandalism from those ranges.
[[User:Bratsche|Ben]]
When I'm not at uni I have to use my parents connection which is AOL. I'm also sarting to see more ISPs use simular proxy setups to AOL so it wont make much difference in the long run.
NONE of them are as popular as AOL though. By the way, I'm on earthlink, and I never get accidently blocked. It's a pretty good ISP, well, as good as dialup can get probably. :(
On 8/22/05, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
That would be cutting off a amount of loyal users, of course. But I think it would be advantagous for any AOL users dedicated to Wikipedia just to get a new ISP. I do think there is a good idea in limiting AOL editing: a hefty amount of time and effort by RC patrollers goes into reverting simple vandalism from those ranges.
[[User:Bratsche|Ben]]
When I'm not at uni I have to use my parents connection which is AOL. I'm also sarting to see more ISPs use simular proxy setups to AOL so it wont make much difference in the long run.
-- geni _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 8/22/05, Phroziac phroziac@gmail.com wrote:
NONE of them are as popular as AOL though. By the way, I'm on earthlink, and I never get accidently blocked. It's a pretty good ISP, well, as good as dialup can get probably. :(
I've had vandles come in from there. I did considering doing a range blcok but decided it would upset too many people.
I've seen a lot of vandalism coming from schools and universities, but I've yet to see vandalism from the uni I attend.
--Mgm
On 8/22/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
I've seen a lot of vandalism coming from schools and universities, but I've yet to see vandalism from the uni I attend.
Possible conclusions
Students from your university are exceptionally well behaved. Your university is very small. No one from your university bothers to do research on the web and so has never come across wikipedia. (except you) Everyone from your university (except you of course) is too stupid to work out that "edit this page" means they can edit a page. Your university is not connected to the Internet.
Takes yer pick ;-)
Theresa
On 8/22/05, Theresa Knott theresaknott@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/22/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
I've seen a lot of vandalism coming from schools and universities, but I've yet to see vandalism from the uni I attend.
Possible conclusions
Students from your university are exceptionally well behaved. Your university is very small. No one from your university bothers to do research on the web and so has never come across wikipedia. (except you) Everyone from your university (except you of course) is too stupid to work out that "edit this page" means they can edit a page. Your university is not connected to the Internet.
Takes yer pick ;-)
Theresa
If we take Mgm as a statistically valid control group, I'd say the first one :P
--gkhan
Looking at the User_talk: pages for IPs from my school, there are only 3, 2 one-time vandals, and 1 simple welcome message, all from September of last year. Then again, it is a small school.
ABCD
On 8/22/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
I've seen a lot of vandalism coming from schools and universities, but I've yet to see vandalism from the uni I attend.
--Mgm
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: RIPEMD160
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
I've seen a lot of vandalism coming from schools and universities, but I've yet to see vandalism from the uni I attend.
I've seen plenty of it, mainly because there is only 1 IP for the entire Uni (and yes, I've been caught in blocks before).
Unfortunately, more and more organisations and ISPs are switching to site or domain-wide proxies and firewalls...
- -- Alphax | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \