In order to unblock an IP number, go to [[wikipedia:Blocked IPs]] and
remove the corresponding line. The software does not unblock any
number automatically: as long as the number is listed under Blocked
IPs, it is blocked.
I looked a bit at the oeuvre of that 62.98.* guy. It's quite an
interesting case. I don't think he's malicious. You don't enter
hundreds of (correct!) digits of pi if you want to discredit a
project. He's misguided, for sure. He looks to me like somebody who
has had many idiosyncratic ideas brewing in his head for years, and
now they pour out in a couple of days. Maybe not unlike our Slovenian
Rastafarian prime number lover.
Axel
>On mar, 2002-04-02 at 10:08, Jimmy Wales wrote:
>> Is the history of ip blocks made public somewhere? I should know,
but I don't. :-(
>
>[[wikipedia:Blocked IPs]]
>
>However the log's a bit buggy (pretty UNIX timestamps instead of
dates!)
>
>The IP ban function needs some interface work as well; there should
be a
>confirm-and-explain step, and perhaps an obvious way to unblock,
should
>it ever be necessary.
BTW, the three different 62.98... pages that were blocked by me, KQ,
and Brian all resolve to "dns.wind.it", which appears to be an
Italian ISP. So it is likely that they are from a dynamic IP pool,
and that they are all the same vandal (who, oddly, has made some real
contributions as well as obvious vandalism). The dynamic-ip issue is
a tricky one; blocks should probably expire quickly to avoid
accidentally blocking legit users, and there's no way, even in
principle, to block a "user".
Likewise, the "you've been blocked" page should have a lengthy
explanation that accounts for the accidental case.
0
Is there a message that pops up to explain to a person who has his/her IP
blocked that they have their IP blocked? I often wonder if I have offended
anyone when I can't access wikipedia at all for several hours to sometimes
days from home (and then am able to access it from work or school for a
while, then nothing - no other sites seem to be affected). Are these outages
normal? Is there a problem with me being behind a firewall? Or am I in fact
on somebodies sh*t-list? Just wondering.....
BTW since everyone else that contributes regularly seems to have admit status
now, I was wondering if I could also be given that status - for the times
when I catch somebody uploading copyrighted material or when a nasty vandal
is having fun in the wee hours in the morning.
Cheers!
I blocked a vandal awhile back too. It occurred to me only later to
wonder how to go about removing the block--but then no one seemed to
know, and I figured 'why bother?' and that was that.
kq
You Wrote:
>> BTW, I don't think that anyone has used the block IP
>> 'feature' yet as it seems to be pretty buggy (according to
>> Magnus and/or Brian V.).
>
>I blocked the "CARROTS" vandal on Friday. He hasn't
>reappeared, but of course I have no way to know whether
>that's really because of the block or if he just went away.
>
>
>00
> BTW, I don't think that anyone has used the block IP
> 'feature' yet as it seems to be pretty buggy (according to
> Magnus and/or Brian V.).
I blocked the "CARROTS" vandal on Friday. He hasn't
reappeared, but of course I have no way to know whether
that's really because of the block or if he just went away.
--
Lee Daniel Crocker <lee(a)piclab.com> <http://www.piclab.com/lee/>
"All inventions or works of authorship original to me, herein and past,
are placed irrevocably in the public domain, and may be used or modified
for any purpose, without permission, attribution, or notification."--LDC
> BTW, I don't think that anyone has used the block IP
> 'feature' yet as it seems to be pretty buggy (according to
> Magnus and/or Brian V.).
I blocked the "CARROTS" vandal on Friday. He hasn't
reappeared, but of course I have no way to know whether
that's really because of the block or if he just went away.
0
When the site was down all last night, the mailing lists were as well.
Are they being run on the same server or group of servers? If so,
you might want to consider some separation there.
This morning, Alex set up a Wikipedia Discussion page on my wiki:
<http://www.piclab.com/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?Wikipedia_Discussion>.
It's not needed now, but feel free to use that in the future in
similar situations.
0
I agree with this, & would like to hear more about how long the
blocks last, how to unblock IPs, etc.--the links are close together
on the History pages, and I'd hate to ban someone unintentionally. I
couldn't agree more that blocking an IP should only be done to
prevent vandalism, & never in anger. I also like the suggestion that
we not be able to block anyone logged in--or would vandals simply
start logging in?
kq
>I think our wikipdia "code of honor" should be: never in anger, never
>in a fight over content. Those have to be settled "on a fair playing
>field", through reason, not software powers.0
It seems like we should have almost everyone at the same level, and
have that level be available for the asking, and have that level be
mostly nondestructive, i.e. every action is reversible, although some
might be a pain in the neck to reverse. So it might look like this:
1. Newcomers -- can do everything except a small handful of actions,
actions which are "pretty serious" like temporarily blocking an ip or
deleting a page.
2. "sysop" or better terminology might be "community member" -- can
do some extra things like nondestructive delete, temporary ip blocking
(which should affect only newcomers, not other "community members").
The important _wiki_ ideal here is that community members shouldn't be
able to do anything extra "in a content fight" if you see what I mean.
We'll all the same, newcomers and community members, when it comes to
the content -- one "check" here is that anyone can become a community
member just by asking... it shouldn't be all that special, and
certainly not an exclusive "club".
3. "developers" -- the main extra thing that developers should have
access to would be "raw" stuff that's pretty technologically
"dangerous" if you don't know what you're doing. I.E., ability to
enter arbitrary SQL select statements, even ones that might be really
slow. This extra power should only be used for development purposes,
and not "in a content fight".
4. "sysop" -- of which there might only be 1, me, or a very small
number. The sysop can do things that might be legally necessary, like
immediately and totally deleting copyright violations, or things that
might be necessary to fight a serious troll attack, like
semi-permanently banning whole ranges of ip numbers. For most things
of this nature, there's probably no need to worry about it in advance.
Anyhow, "sysop" powers must never be used "in a content fight". This
would be like Superman cheating at poker by looking through the cards.
:-)
--Jimbo