A few months ago the ability was added to limit IP blocks to allow logged-in contributions to continue. This allowed finer-grained blocking of troublemakers on shared IPs (schools, AOL etc).
There's some suggestion to make this the default mode. I wanted to announce this ahead of time since it will change what happens when admins make a block without manually clicking something extra.
If there's no serious objection, we'll go ahead and change this in a few days.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
Seems fine by me, since it seems to simply check the anon-only for AOL IPs by default.
One related thing that would be really nice is no have the autoblocker not go off for AOL user blocks.
Brion Vibber wrote:
A few months ago the ability was added to limit IP blocks to allow logged-in contributions to continue. This allowed finer-grained blocking of troublemakers on shared IPs (schools, AOL etc).
There's some suggestion to make this the default mode. I wanted to announce this ahead of time since it will change what happens when admins make a block without manually clicking something extra.
If there's no serious objection, we'll go ahead and change this in a few days.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com) _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
We have made the experience that from most schools, there are never ever useful contributions. Hundreds of If the IP-block can be circumvented easily by creating accounts, this will only create more work on the vandalism front, see also http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kategorie%3AIP-Sperrung
Regarding AOL I have always thought that workarounds for their IP-range should be done by AOL and not by us.
Philipp
On 10/18/06, P. Birken pbirken@gmail.com wrote:
We have made the experience that from most schools, there are never ever useful contributions. Hundreds of If the IP-block can be circumvented easily by creating accounts, this will only create more work on the vandalism front, see also http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kategorie%3AIP-Sperrung
As I understand it, the proposal is to default-check the first checkbox (block anonymous users only). Account creation would continue to be prevented by default.
2006/10/18, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org:
As I understand it, the proposal is to default-check the first checkbox (block anonymous users only). Account creation would continue to be prevented by default.
In that case, I have no serious objections.
Philipp
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 10:13:21 +0200 "P. Birken" pbirken@gmail.com wrote:
We have made the experience that from most schools, there are never ever useful contributions. Hundreds of If the IP-block can be circumvented easily by creating accounts, this will only create more work on the vandalism front, see also http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kategorie%3AIP-Sperrung
I believe the perspective you present is somewhat constricted as we ought to take into account that a lot of these "vandals" having been introduced to Wikipedia in the confining and not often inspiring environment of school in many cases will come back to us of their own volition to contribute with something valuable. Perhaps therefore the nuisance is outweighed when the bigger picture is considered. Since this connection isn't easily spotted or documented (and hence not acknowledged), it would be easy to adopt a preventive practice such as you advocate, however, we might not in the end be better off for it.
Halvor (User:meco)
-- email to and from this person will be subject to public availability
+++ magiske prosesser [18/10/06 10:22 +0100]:
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 10:13:21 +0200 "P. Birken" pbirken@gmail.com wrote:
We have made the experience that from most schools, there are never ever useful contributions. Hundreds of If the IP-block can be circumvented easily by creating accounts, this will only create more work on the vandalism front, see also http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kategorie%3AIP-Sperrung
I believe the perspective you present is somewhat constricted as we ought to take into account that a lot of these "vandals" having been introduced to Wikipedia in the confining and not often inspiring environment of school in many cases will come back to us of their own volition to contribute with something valuable. Perhaps therefore the nuisance is outweighed when the bigger picture is considered. Since this connection isn't easily spotted or documented (and hence not acknowledged), it would be easy to adopt a preventive practice such as you advocate, however, we might not in the end be better off for it.
Halvor (User:meco)
Hear, hear! Halvor, I like this train of thought. ---SJ
2006/10/18, meta.sj@gmail.com meta.sj@gmail.com:
Hear, hear! Halvor, I like this train of thought. ---SJ
Really? I consider the theory that people who write I FUCKED YOUR MAMA! into articles might turn into brilliant contributors one day, because we let them do it to be not so well thought out.
Cheers,
Philipp
I would agree with switching the boxes - we need to assume good faith with blocks, not the opposite. However, I agree that a lot of blocks would need the box ticking - it would make sysops without scripts think about it before hitting the button.
Just my thoughts.
S
On 18/10/06, P. Birken pbirken@gmail.com wrote:
2006/10/18, meta.sj@gmail.com meta.sj@gmail.com:
Hear, hear! Halvor, I like this train of thought. ---SJ
Really? I consider the theory that people who write I FUCKED YOUR MAMA! into articles might turn into brilliant contributors one day, because we let them do it to be not so well thought out.
Cheers,
Philipp _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Sean Whitton schreef:
I would agree with switching the boxes - we need to assume good faith with blocks, not the opposite. However, I agree that a lot of blocks would need the box ticking - it would make sysops without scripts think about it before hitting the button.
Just my thoughts.
S
When the new blocking options where created user w:en:user:Lupin posted some javascript to change the default blocking options. I suppose that will still work when the default options are changed.
So users or wikis can override the default options if the wish to do so.
See; http://en.wikizine.org/2006/07/wikizine-number-34_17.html
I agree, but I think by having the default settings as I suggest, the right message is being sent out. However, you're right - it's trivial to override it in monobook.
S
On 18/10/06, Walter Vermeir walter@wikipedia.be wrote:
Sean Whitton schreef:
I would agree with switching the boxes - we need to assume good faith with blocks, not the opposite. However, I agree that a lot of blocks would need the box ticking - it would make sysops without scripts think about it before hitting the button.
Just my thoughts.
S
When the new blocking options where created user w:en:user:Lupin posted some javascript to change the default blocking options. I suppose that will still work when the default options are changed.
So users or wikis can override the default options if the wish to do so.
See; http://en.wikizine.org/2006/07/wikizine-number-34_17.html
-- Contact: walter AT wikizine DOT org Wikizine.org - news for and about the Wikimedia community
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
As I understand it it is also possible to set the standard locally different, so why changing it globally? I think it would be best if the communities make these decisions themselves and define it in their monobook.
But one way or another, I think it is very important that it is easy for another sysop to see in the log how the block was performed. Is it possible that an additional note will be added to the blocklog and the blocklist, telling what type of block was performed? (with or without blocking logged in users, with or without blocking accountcreation) I think that is very important, as we are having a lot of problems with that when people come complain through OTRS for instance.
Effeietsanders
2006/10/19, Sean Whitton sean@silentflame.com:
I agree, but I think by having the default settings as I suggest, the right message is being sent out. However, you're right - it's trivial to override it in monobook.
S
On 18/10/06, Walter Vermeir walter@wikipedia.be wrote:
Sean Whitton schreef:
I would agree with switching the boxes - we need to assume good faith with blocks, not the opposite. However, I agree that a lot of blocks would need the box ticking - it would make sysops without scripts think about it before hitting the button.
Just my thoughts.
S
When the new blocking options where created user w:en:user:Lupin posted some javascript to change the default blocking options. I suppose that will still work when the default options are changed.
So users or wikis can override the default options if the wish to do so.
See; http://en.wikizine.org/2006/07/wikizine-number-34_17.html
-- Contact: walter AT wikizine DOT org Wikizine.org - news for and about the Wikimedia community
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- —Xyrael / Sean Whitton ~ Knowledge is power, but only wisdom is liberty sean@silentflame.com | xyrael.net _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
effe iets anders wrote:
As I understand it it is also possible to set the standard locally different, so why changing it globally? I think it would be best if the communities make these decisions themselves and define it in their monobook.
Inconsistency in behavior is not good; it makes administrative actions confusing and error-prone.
But one way or another, I think it is very important that it is easy for another sysop to see in the log how the block was performed. Is it possible that an additional note will be added to the blocklog and the blocklist, telling what type of block was performed?
This is already logged, as far as I know.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
Brion Vibber wrote:
effe iets anders wrote:
As I understand it it is also possible to set the standard locally different, so why changing it globally? I think it would be best if the communities make these decisions themselves and define it in their monobook.
Inconsistency in behavior is not good; it makes administrative actions confusing and error-prone.
But one way or another, I think it is very important that it is easy for another sysop to see in the log how the block was performed. Is it possible that an additional note will be added to the blocklog and the blocklist, telling what type of block was performed?
This is already logged, as far as I know.
It's not present on the blocklog, but is present on the blocklist.
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
Brion Vibber wrote:
effe iets anders wrote:
As I understand it it is also possible to set the standard locally different, so why changing it globally? I think it would be best if the communities make these decisions themselves and define it in their monobook.
Inconsistency in behavior is not good; it makes administrative actions confusing and error-prone.
But one way or another, I think it is very important that it is easy for another sysop to see in the log how the block was performed. Is it possible that an additional note will be added to the blocklog and the blocklist, telling what type of block was performed?
This is already logged, as far as I know.
It's not present on the blocklog, but is present on the blocklist.
Thanks for the reminder; I'll try to make sure this gets fixed.
For reference, this is logged in bugzilla; you can CC yourself to the bug to receive a notification when a patch is posted or the fix made: http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6638
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org