I appreciate your detailed explanation. If a page at Meta could be created
to explain this and linked to from the edit summaries this would do much to
eliminate confusion amongst local administrators. I do have a concern,
however. I've checked the SUL statuses for many of these accounts blocked
locally and usually the local blocks only affect less than 20 wikis. What's
to say that a mischievous individual couldn't register at one of the other
700 wikis without blocks/autoblock in place and do the same thing? This
seems to be a problem in need of a technical solution rather than one that
creates the situation that prompted my original message. As it is, it seems
that even if local blocks for global locks are performed at Wikibooks (and
elsewhere), you are still going to need to do a CU regardless.
-- User:Adrignola
On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 12:17 PM, James Alexander <jamesofur(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:
While I've had my own issues with Stewards
reaching into local communities
I
actually think these blocks are important and very useful for our xwiki
abusers. While the transparency reasoning that Pathoschild mentioned is
true
and important just as if not more important is the autoblocks (where at
least a day or so block makes sense).
Global locking does not have any autoblock like feature and we have a large
portion of our xwiki abusers (and even a growing number of those who only
attack only one or two sites and have figured out the global login system)
who will take advantage of this and go to another wiki, create the account
and SUL over to whatever project they want to attack. This is also the
issue
with abusive names (they often don't even edit, that isn't the point).
If the stewards can't implement these autoblocks it is easier for abusers
to
use wikibooks as a starting point for abuse, just because they didn't edit
there doesn't mean that they didn't use the project as a spring board or
that they couldn't in the future since it is obvious they know the project
exists and will now try it when they go trying to create new accounts.
Globally locking active xwiki vandals is almost useless if they are able to
just recreate accounts continually or at least until they SUL onto a wiki
without local CUs so that a Steward can check and a global IP block can be
implemented.
James Alexander
james.alexander(a)rochester.edu
jamesofur(a)gmail.com
On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 12:40 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) <nemowiki(a)gmail.com
wrote:
Jesse (Pathoschild), 08/08/2010 16:53:
> On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 9:04 AM, Aaron Adrignola
> <aaron.adrignola(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> It is irritating to continually see stewards making local blocks at
the
>
English language Wikibooks with the comment "crosswiki abuse <!
--globally
locked[1]; about bot[2]-- >".
These local blocks are made when the account has been globally locked
by a steward (see
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/SH#lock ). There can
be no further undermining of local community autonomy, because the
local account is blocked with or without an explicit local block. The
local blocks are implemented automatically as a way for local
communities to know the user is blocked, since there is no other local
indication of the implicit block.
I'm ok with those block, but if this is all you want, why isn't a short
block enough? It would leave a trace in the local logs, although it
wouldn't be displayed on [[Special:Contributions]].
Nemo
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l