From: Tim Starling I did a quick hack which allows sysops to ban logged-in users. This
was
discussed on wikien-l long, long ago, and was widely agreed to be a
good
idea (well, not that widely, but Jimbo was particularly keen).
Basically
you just type the username into the ban IP box. I changed a few messages
to
indicate that you could do it.
I assume that sysops can be banned through this interface as well. The hack sounds pretty ugly. Banning by username should be done by banning through the login (i.e. the cookies) not by checking IP.
Have these changes been checked in?
This is not something that should go live without discussion on the main mailing list.
-tc
I was thinking of a way to test cunc's question -- by making a new username and banning it from my login, but seeing that the ban is apparently of the ip - i would be banning me, wouldnt i?
Im glad to see this put in -- Heine was a humungus big pain in the ass last night, (major props out to Hephaestos for trailing and keeping a sense of humour about it) --
Still maybe cung is right --in case this isnt already on the plate -- A routinely upadted shortlist of sysop ips for a check against a "ban username" function -- might be appropriate. With each login, the each user ip is updated. Only rarely might a conflict arise due to a same-ip range for dynamic ip sysops and potential problem user.
-S-
--- The Cunctator cunctator@kband.com wrote:
From: Tim Starling I did a quick hack which allows sysops to ban
logged-in users. This was
discussed on wikien-l long, long ago, and was
widely agreed to be a good
idea (well, not that widely, but Jimbo was
particularly keen). Basically
you just type the username into the ban IP box. I
changed a few messages to
indicate that you could do it.
I assume that sysops can be banned through this interface as well. The hack sounds pretty ugly. Banning by username should be done by banning through the login (i.e. the cookies) not by checking IP.
Have these changes been checked in?
This is not something that should go live without discussion on the main mailing list.
-tc
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
Steve Vertigum wrote:
Still maybe cung is right --in case this isnt already on the plate -- A routinely upadted shortlist of sysop ips for a check against a "ban username" function -- might be appropriate. With each login, the each user ip is updated. Only rarely might a conflict arise due to a same-ip range for dynamic ip sysops and potential problem user.
We shouldn't have to worry about sysops at all. A banned admin can always unban themself.
-- Toby
On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 03:20:07PM -0700, Toby Bartels wrote:
Steve Vertigum wrote:
Still maybe cung is right --in case this isnt already on the plate -- A routinely upadted shortlist of sysop ips for a check against a "ban username" function -- might be appropriate. With each login, the each user ip is updated. Only rarely might a conflict arise due to a same-ip range for dynamic ip sysops and potential problem user.
We shouldn't have to worry about sysops at all. A banned admin can always unban themself.
We have already seen this on IRCNet. Giving sysops power to ban sysops is going to lead to a lot of problems.
So could you: * forbid sysops block other sysops * don't install it on any Wikipedia but (maybe) English
From: Tomasz Wegrzanowski
We have already seen this on IRCNet. Giving sysops power to ban sysops is going to lead to a lot of problems.
So could you:
- forbid sysops block other sysops
- don't install it on any Wikipedia but (maybe) English
They're not analogous situations. Banning on IRC means no ability to participate--a sysop can't easily unban himself. Banning on Wikipedia means only blocking the ability to edit pages--a sysop can easily unban himself.
That is, the ability to ban WP sysops is only cosmetic.
On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 12:00:04PM -0400, The Cunctator wrote:
From: Tomasz Wegrzanowski
We have already seen this on IRCNet. Giving sysops power to ban sysops is going to lead to a lot of problems.
So could you:
- forbid sysops block other sysops
- don't install it on any Wikipedia but (maybe) English
They're not analogous situations. Banning on IRC means no ability to participate--a sysop can't easily unban himself. Banning on Wikipedia means only blocking the ability to edit pages--a sysop can easily unban himself.
That is, the ability to ban WP sysops is only cosmetic.
That's idiotic. What for is a ban where one can "unban oneself" ?
Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
That's idiotic. What for is a ban where one can "unban oneself" ?
For nothing, obviously. So why are we worrying about it?
What would be, if not idiotic, then at any rate a waste of effort, would be to alter the natural code for blocking user names so that it checks that whether the user names are admins first.
You make a fair case that blocking admins for real is a bad idea; but since that can't happen anyway, why bother altering the code?
-- Toby
Toby Bartels wrote:
Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
That's idiotic. What for is a ban where one can "unban oneself" ?
Finally he cottons on. I did say it twice, on wikitech-l:
:Tsk tsk, don't you people read? ;) I said: : ::As usual, these automatically generated entries, and the original ::username entries, can be unblocked by any sysop (even blocked sysops).
For nothing, obviously. So why are we worrying about it?
What would be, if not idiotic, then at any rate a waste of effort, would be to alter the natural code for blocking user names so that it checks that whether the user names are admins first.
You make a fair case that blocking admins for real is a bad idea; but since that can't happen anyway, why bother altering the code?
Only developers can effectively block sysops, by first removing the user's sysop status and then banning the user.
-- Tim Starling <tstarlingphysicsunimelbeduau>
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org