From: daniwo59@aol.com Reply-To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org To: wikiEN-l@wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] Again I am blocked Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 02:21:28 EDT
I understand why it is necessary to block Michael. However, it is absolutely unnecesary to block me! Furthermore, the answer that the block against Michael (and by extension, against me) will be lifted in a day or so is absolutely unsatisfactory.
I suggest you get a username, if you don't already have one, and tell us what it is. The development team will be able to override the IP blocking for you personally. This will allow us to continue to block Michael, and will also give us an obvious course of action if you turn out to be just another Michael pseudonym trying to get the previous pseudonyms unblocked.
If you're currently an anonymous contributor and you're anxious about getting a username, keep in mind that users with usernames have much better privacy protection in place than "anonymous" users.
-- Tim Starling.
_________________________________________________________________ MSN Instant Messenger now available on Australian mobile phones. Go to http://ninemsn.com.au/mobilecentral/hotmail_messenger.asp
Tim Starling wrote:
I suggest you get a username, if you don't already have one, and tell us what it is. The development team will be able to override the IP blocking for you personally. This will allow us to continue to block Michael, and will also give us an obvious course of action if you turn out to be just another Michael pseudonym trying to get the previous pseudonyms unblocked.
If you're currently an anonymous contributor and you're anxious about getting a username, keep in mind that users with usernames have much
better
privacy protection in place than "anonymous" users.
If I remember rightly, daniwo59@aol.com is User:Danny, a longstanding contributor and a sysop
The problem is that a block will stop all users on that IP, logged in or not. The only reason sysops can't block logged in users is that they don't know the relevant IP numbers (aside from the policy reasons of course)
I know the cookie idea will hopefully help with banning people like Michael, bypassing the need for an IP block - but could it work the other way too? I'm not technical so I don't know if this is feasable or not, but could we have a "trusted user" cookie. One that allowed trusted users to skip any block on the IP they are using? It woldn't be needed for most users, but would overrule an IP block in cases like Danny's.
Anyway, as I say, I have no idea if this is possible or desirable
Regards,
sannse
That's a good idea, but someone could just write a trusted user cookie to get on the site if they tried hard enough. Probably no one would get around it. I still think a blocking cookie would work for the 75% of internet users that don't know how to delete their cookies.
--- sannse sannse@delphiforums.com wrote:
I know the cookie idea will hopefully help with banning people like Michael, bypassing the need for an IP block - but could it work the other way too? I'm not technical so I don't know if this is feasable or not, but could we have a "trusted user" cookie. One that allowed trusted users to skip any block on the IP they are using? It woldn't be needed for most users, but would overrule an IP block in cases like Danny's.
Anyway, as I say, I have no idea if this is possible or desirable
Regards,
sannse
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search.yahoo.com
Hmmm... Or maybe an "exempt from blocking" cookie? Preferably containing data that needs to be verified by the server, so others couldn't construct the cookie, and it should expire fairly rapidly (week? month?) at which point the server will no longer consider the data valid.
That way, we could be (slightly) more liberal with bans involving IP ranges, since inadvertantly affected anonymous users could have a cookie, and those with an account would get an account exemption.
Daniel Ehrenberg wrote:
That's a good idea, but someone could just write a trusted user cookie to get on the site if they tried hard enough. Probably no one would get around it. I still think a blocking cookie would work for the 75% of internet users that don't know how to delete their cookies.
--- sannse sannse@delphiforums.com wrote:
I know the cookie idea will hopefully help with banning people like Michael, bypassing the need for an IP block - but could it work the other way too? I'm not technical so I don't know if this is feasable or not, but could we have a "trusted user" cookie. One that allowed trusted users to skip any block on the IP they are using? It woldn't be needed for most users, but would overrule an IP block in cases like Danny's.
Anyway, as I say, I have no idea if this is possible or desirable
Regards,
sannse
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search.yahoo.com