Nobody is suggesting anyone be given the ability to perform a task they can't already. What is being suggested is a tool or feature to make carrying out this task easy.
I think the key point I made in my earlier mail was that this IP for WoW was blocked on en.wn about two weeks ago. We're still getting hits from it on other wikis. That's two weeks of cross-lang/cross-project disruption that could have been nipped in the bud. There was consensus at the time of my posting to Checkuser-l that the IP had been enough of a nuisance on multiple wikis to merit the cross-project/language block. Problem is, it took *weeks* for it to be implemented. This is what I want to see dealt with.
I've already posted on Checkuser-l that we need some ground rules for when this can be applied - and I've taken it for granted that it would be applied to an IP address, not a username. A disruptive username should be blocked on a per-wiki basis and grounds for elevating that to a block of the underlying IP should perhaps include the creation of multiple disruptive accounts.
I must stress, this is not asking for an unavailable power. It is seeking a tool to automate the process. Personally I would be opposed to this being used for short-term blocks, it is for habitual offenders who have a permanent or semi-permanent IP. I'd welcome a discussion to set up ground rules for use of such a tool or feature, but I would definitely argue the case it is needed.
Brian McNeil
-----Original Message----- From: foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Anders Wegge Jakobsen Sent: 31 January 2008 22:21 To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: Wikimedia-wide global blocking mechanism?
"Brian McNeil" brian.mcneil@wikinewsie.org writes:
I'm afraid there seems to be an assumption that people with Checkuser are looking to apply their cultural norms to other wikis. This isn't the case, and I suspect most of the other CheckUser people would oppose expanding this idea of global blocking in that way.
No, I'm not after checkusers in particular. I'm warning about the consequences of a well-meaning proposal. Especially, when I see what bystanders gets out of it. Actually, I'm on the checkuser-l myself, so I've seen the talk there.
It has now been nearly two weeks since I blocked an IP address on en.wikinews for a year. Checkuser revealed a long history of Willy on Wheels type usernames, all responsible for vandalism. When the same IP cropped up on several wikis it seemed logical to do a cross-wiki block. To do the whole nine yards is a mammoth task, and the people who have to do this are asking for a tool to make it easier.
Yes, they ask for that. But I see no reason giving this kind of power to checkuser, let alone random admins on foo.wikipedia.org. And unfortunately, that was where the debate were headed, when I had time to read this thread. Coming from one of those "pesky and irritating" (to paraphrase the general tone in this thread, and not yours) little wikis, I can tell you that any kind of centralization is a bad move. Already we are forced to live with people assuming that whatever policy enwiki invented this week is project-wide. Being forced to live with yet another layer of "We do know better than you, after all", will just increase tension, and achieve little less. I don't know where dawiki ranks, and frankly, I don't really care. I happen to be one of about 15 active administrators, who are well capable of taking care of our own project. We *DO* *NOT* need any kind of outside "help", "advice" or whatnot. What we do need on the other hand, is a hint, now and then, that someone actually consider us mature enough that we are able to cope with our own problems.
And this lead me to the core issue:
There are too many small wikis, with a very limited community backing them. They are endangered by project-wide vandalism. But that danger is a political creature, so please don't try to combat that with technical means that are far more disruptive in the long term.
Yes, there is a concern that making this easy will make it occur more frequently, but that is - I think - a risk worth taking.
Plain and simple no. If it's worth doing, it's something that will be done, even if it's hard to do. If it's not that much of an issue, there will be blocks only where needed.