For small wikis without an admin the global block list seems to be a good option, much better one than waiting for one of the stewards to come and block the vandals. For big ones - I am not so sure, since the vandals are unregistered anyway, and blocking an IP range for English or Dutch wiki could do some harm. May be to exclude first 20 wikis from authomatick blocking? For the global admin list, I was under understanding that stewards are actually doing the job. Cheers, Yaroslav

Yeah, it's not perfect, but it seems like it would be a good tool for stewards to have. Only thing is, I'm envisioning a scenario where a valid user with good contribs gets blocked, doesn't user meta, tries to get unblocked at his home project, but cannot because he's not locally blocked, and the user doesn't know how to get in touch with a steward (Because he doesn't know of this policy) or doesn't understand how to communicate with one. I don't think it's necessarily that big of a deal, but I think it will need a LOT of localization to be effective. -Dan On Jan 31, 2008, at 7:14 AM, David Gerard wrote:

or we just agree that it will only be used for IP's (and if I'd have to say it, only for short terms, so that overriding would not be a big issue too. ) If we agree on that, I think we should be able to trust the stewards to adhere to that, and there would be no need to also make sure it is not technically possible. BR, Eia 2008/1/31, Alex <mrzmanwiki(a)gmail.com>om>:

Short blocks are not bad. Robots like this tend to change IP anyway, and a short block will just stop them to work. I followed the discussion as well (as a steward also on that list), but I think that if the bot would be stopped, and it would become active again, it would comparitative be a very small efford to stop it. Just one click on the button. If we want to stop it for a longer time, there are more issues at stake, and that would imho require a much more complicated policy and discussion, both now and at the moment it would be blocked. Another reason is that if we stick to one day, or something in the same order of magnitude, it is clearly something within the scope of the stewards. If we go much longer, I am not so sure about that any more. I don't say it is not, but I would have doubts about it. With one day, it is clear, as it is just an emergency measure. In the discussion you mention, I think the main reason to choose for such a long time was because it is such a big of an efford to block it. (promote, block, degrade, and that 400-or-so times) With this feature, it would be one single action. Best regards, Eia 2008/1/31, Brian McNeil <brian.mcneil(a)wikinewsie.org>rg>:

There is certainly no plan to use this to block entire countries. The issue, as others have stated, is where we have a persistent and patient vandal. Willy on Wheels is the ideal example of this; I'd swear he writes down when blocks expire and just starts vandalising again when they do so. I assure you that the people involved from the CheckUser group do not lightly ask for this tool. The IP that provoked this was UK-based, and I for one would welcome input on exceptions for Mid-East and Asian countries where a limited number of proxies are the population's gateway to the Internet. The vandals abusing such proxies are generally not among such ISP's subscriber base and - with help from someone on language - we can try and persuade the ISP in question to firewall the proxy appropriately or enable xff. In any case I personally wouldn't have access to such a tool. I would have to justify application of a global block to a steward and have evidence from other checkusers that the IP was problematic on several wikis. Before anyone gets to that stage the IP will have been investigated. If it is a proxy for an entire country - as I say above - then a different approach may be required, and a far shorter block would be applied. Brian McNeil -----Original Message----- From: foundation-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Waerth Sent: 01 February 2008 08:43 To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: Wikimedia-wide global blocking mechanism? The problem is, these people abuse open proxies in countries where many providers have, for whatever reason, choosen to have a policy of open proxies. Which means you will block most of a country with this policy of yours even on their homewiki. That is not really what you want is it? Waerth case. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 31/01/2008, Alex <mrzmanwiki(a)gmail.com> wrote: SUL will only help where people use exactly the same username on each site they need to be blocked from - vandals smart enough to jump projects when one catches them are likely to realise they need to use a different name (just hopefully one similar enough for a regex to catch).

On 31/01/2008, Alex <mrzmanwiki(a)gmail.com> wrote: Surely, until SUL is implemented, it would be pretty much impossible to block a specific user with such a tool? -- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk

On 31/01/2008, Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb(a)yahoo.com> wrote: Would logging it in the local block-log system be an acceptable method of notification? -- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk

--- Andrew Gray <shimgray(a)gmail.com> wrote: I was more thinking first about a notification that this ability even *exists* before addressing notification individual blocks. However regarding individual blocks what language are you proposing the local log entry be written in? The only reasonable way to do this is to have the log entries be a consistent pre-arranged formula that links to a local page explaining the system in the local language. The best way to ensure that all this is set-up is to use an opt-in system that requires these things be set-up before blocks . Anything else means some wiki(s) will wake up one day to realize there are inexplicable blocks in place. Likely with logs entries they cannot read. And very likely when they start making inquiries no one will be able to explain what has happened to them own language leading to further misunderstandings. Seriously make a system to handle these blocks and require every wiki wishing to join the system file a bug and things will go much more smoothly. If the stewards find they are doing tedious manual blocks on a certain wiki, they can encourage the that wiki to file the bug. Birgitte SB ____________________________________________________________________________________ Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping

The problem with opt-out is that a wiki must know this even *exists* in order to opt-out. So if you are capable of notifing all the village pumps in a language they can comprehend, this is reasonable. If you are not capable of that, opt-out is not reasonable. If this is mainly for wiki's with no community, then allow stewards to "opt-in" such wiki's. If they have no community, they will not object. Birgitte SB --- effe iets anders <effeietsanders(a)gmail.com> wrote: ____________________________________________________________________________________ http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ____________________________________________________________________________________ Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs

I would like to re-iterate as a former admin of a small wiki almost without a community, for small wikis it looks very much reasonable. May be not only the vandal blocking, but also cleaning up some mess like pages created for vandalism which are tagged and need to be deleted. Larger wikis with the community of course will most probably choose to handle it themselves (not opt in). Cheers, Yaroslav no or barely a community. Most of the wiki's are small sized, and many > show little activity. It is much easier, and would in practice be > almost the same, to just automatically opt in projects... > BR, Lodewijk > 2008/2/1, Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb(a)yahoo.com>om>: >> The problem with opt-out is that a wiki must know this >> even *exists* in order to opt-out. So if you are >> capable of notifing all the village pumps in a >> language they can comprehend, this is reasonable. If >> you are not capable of that, opt-out is not >> reasonable. If this is mainly for wiki's with no >> community, then allow stewards to "opt-in" such >> wiki's. If they have no community, they will not >> object. >>> Birgitte SB >>>>> --- effe iets anders <effeietsanders(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> > Hi, >> >> > I agree with your concerns. However, currently a >> > similar system is >> > already active, proxyblocker. This system blocks >> > some (I dont know how >> > many) proxies, detected somewhere in 2005. Dont >> > worry, no new blocks >> > are being added, but some are still in place. The >> > user just gets a >> > message that he is blocked by proxyblocker. We could >> > pick a logical >> > name to appear in the message, that would point to >> > meta. Maybe >> > CrosswikiBlocker, or VandalbotBlocker or something. >> >> > Opt-in is not workable. This new thing is mainly for >> > wiki's with no >> > community. You can only opt in if you have a >> > community. Hence, opt in >> > would not work. After all, the stewards mainly have >> > to block bots on >> > wiki's with no or almost no normal edits. when there >> > are people >> > around, and they have sysops and a community, they >> > can handle it >> > themselves generally. However, I would plea for >> > opt-out. >> >> > For the unblocking, I do not think that should be a >> > major issue, if we >> > would choose for a maximum of a block in the range >> > of 1 day-1week. In >> > that case, the chance that someone is affected by >> > that block, but is >> > not the person who was doing the malicious edits, is >> > quite slim. >> > Furthermore, that person will survive to wait a day >> > or a week, no big >> > harm done. If it proofs to be a major blocker for a >> > specific >> > community, ie they would only have one IP for a >> > whole country or >> > something, they could opt out. >> >> > BR, Eia >> >> > 2008/1/31, Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb(a)yahoo.com>om>: >> > >> > > --- Andrew Gray <shimgray(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > > > On 31/01/2008, Birgitte SB >> > <birgitte_sb(a)yahoo.com>> > > > wrote: >> > > >> > > > > This is the key problem. I think that unless >> > we >> > > > are >> > > > > capable of notifing all wikis of about the >> > > > workings of >> > > > > this process in a language they are proficient >> > > > taking >> > > > > blocks Wikimedia wide will cause a lot of >> > harm. >> > > > Of >> > > > > course an opt-in system would be very >> > workable. >> > > >> > > > Would logging it in the local block-log system >> > be an >> > > > acceptable method >> > > > of notification? >> > >> > > I was more thinking first about a notification >> > that >> > > this ability even *exists* before addressing >> > > notification individual blocks. However regarding >> > > individual blocks what language are you proposing >> > the >> > > local log entry be written in? >> > >> > > The only reasonable way to do this is to have the >> > log >> > > entries be a consistent pre-arranged formula that >> > > links to a local page explaining the system in the >> > > local language. The best way to ensure that all >> > this >> > > is set-up is to use an opt-in system that requires >> > > these things be set-up before blocks . >> > >> > > Anything else means some wiki(s) will wake up one >> > day >> > > to realize there are inexplicable blocks in place. >> > > Likely with logs entries they cannot read. And >> > very >> > > likely when they start making inquiries no one >> > will be >> > > able to explain what has happened to them own >> > language >> > > leading to further misunderstandings. >> > >> > > Seriously make a system to handle these blocks and >> > > require every wiki wishing to join the system file >> > a >> > > bug and things will go much more smoothly. If the >> > > stewards find they are doing tedious manual blocks >> > on >> > > a certain wiki, they can encourage the that wiki >> > to >> > > file the bug. >> > >> > > Birgitte SB >> > >> > >> > >> >> ____________________________________________________________________________________ >> > > Looking for last minute shopping deals? >> > > Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. >> >> http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping >> > >> > > _______________________________________________ >> > > foundation-l mailing list >> > > foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org >> > > Unsubscribe: >> >> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l >> > >> >> > _______________________________________________ >> > foundation-l mailing list >> > foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org >> > Unsubscribe: >> >> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l >> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________________________________ >> Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. >> http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs >> _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Dan Rosenthal wrote: One important factor which discourages me as much as you from keeping up with en:wp's Village Pump is its sheer mass. The tiny projects do not have that problem. Ec

They use English. Cheers, Yaroslav

2008/1/31, Milos Rancic <millosh(a)gmail.com>om>: I'm sorry, but I have some big problems with that. I thought for a moment I misread you, but I am afraight not. Communities have different values, different borders, different rules, different behaviour. I beleive we have some very valuable member of the transcom that has been banned for a long time from her home wiki. And I'm confident there are more of these cases. If I am seen as disruptive somewhere, that does not mean the same behaviour occurs at all on other projects, with other people. And even if it would, it does not automatically conclude that this behaviour is also bad on the other community. Personal attacks for instance are very differently interpreted in some communities as in enwiki. Also the open proxies of course. While in some wiki's open proxies are mainly used for vandalistic activities, in other projects they are being used to avoid easy government control, arrests or the loosing of a job. in some projects these addresses are disruptive, in others they are the backbone of the project. By deciding that for instance nlwiki's open procy policy should become wikimediawide (preventively block all open proxies, including TOR etc) might just very well kill some projects. I am confident this is not your intention. Of course there are ways around it, but this is just an example. My whole point is: who is one community to decide for another community who is allowed to join them. On one side you extremely rely on good faith of the blocking community, but on the other side you forget that also the blocked person might be acting in good faith, but for *some* reason, makes him/herself impossible on a project. Maybe because of language barriers, maybe because of long ongoing disagreements. It can all be in good faith, it can all be a reason to block if that is best for that local community. It is not per se the best for every community. BR, Lodewijk

effe iets anders wrote: I too think that Milos' proposal goes too far. No single project should have the power to insist on a site-wide block. Some refugees from the cauldron of the en:wp can do quite well when they emigrate to a project that is willing to listen to and respect their views. This does not mean that their proposals are adopted, only that they are listened to. The regulars on a small project look dimly on attempts to import en:wp practices without independent discussion. A logical extension of Milos' proposal could arise if someone persistently insisted on pushing a Serbian POV on hr:wp. The Croatians would become very annoyed with this until that individual met one of the criteria which Milos suggests. They would block him, and the logical consequence would then be that he should also be blocked on sr:wp. Somehow, I don't see that this would necessarily be an acceptable result. Ec

On 1/31/08, Yaroslav M. Blanter <putevod(a)mccme.ru> wrote: Duration of such blocks would be something like ten minutes, which would be the last minutes of that contributor's adminship.

On 31/01/2008, Milos Rancic <millosh(a)gmail.com> wrote: You do realise the head of the translator committee is banned from ja:wp due to personal disagreements? Communities have attacks of batshit insane, and that's too much power to hand to one project. - d.

That has been on bugzila for over a year now (perhaps two). It is easier said then done I think. On Jan 31, 2008 12:34 PM, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On 31/01/2008, Andrew Gray <shimgray(a)gmail.com> wrote: Oh, another one: iii) some way of a local project *knowing* that a block has been issued - so presumably this would have to tie into all the local block logs. -- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk

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. 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, there is a concern that making this easy will make it occur more frequently, but that is - I think - a risk worth taking. Brian McNeil -----Original Message----- From: foundation-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Anders Wegge Jakobsen Sent: 31 January 2008 21:33 To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: Wikimedia-wide global blocking mechanism? "David Gerard" &lt;dgerard(a)gmail.com&gt; writes: * Any kind of centralization, will be perceived as unwanted influence on all or most of the projects that are not enwiki. * Really interesting intrawiki wheel wars. * Conflicting policies between wikis. In short, a very bad idea. -- // Wegge <http://geowiki.wegge.dk/wiki/Forside> - Alt om geocaching Bruger du den gratis spamfighther ser jeg kun dine indlæg *EN* gang. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

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(a)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" &lt;brian.mcneil(a)wikinewsie.org&gt; writes: 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. 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. 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. -- // Wegge <http://geowiki.wegge.dk/wiki/Forside> - Alt om geocaching Bruger du den gratis spamfighther ser jeg kun dine indlæg *EN* gang. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l