May I suggest one more piece of logic? An IP block is automatically released if a non-banned user logs in on it. (which means that the IP has been reassigned away from the vandal)
Hrmm. I thought part of the joy of IP blocks was that vandal user accounts can't come in from that IP either. I've used this at least once to ban a logged- in vandal.
A vandal shouldn't be able to escape the block by creating new user accounts (or falling back to user accounts that already exist)
I myself would like to suggest a feature: when we get sysop ability to ban logged-in users, the last IP of a banned user should itself be banned for, oh, an hour or so (without actually revealing the IP address to any non-developer, if there are privacy concerns). Is that feasible?
Note the part about not revealing the IP address - this shouldn't become a way for sysops to determine arbitrary users' IP addresses, by banning them briefly (though actually I would like to be able to check IP addresses, but I guess if we're going to have a privacy policy we can't do that).
Evercat
On Mon, 01 Sep 2003 20:31:32 +0100, Allan Crossman a.crossman@blueyonder.co.uk gave utterance to the following:
May I suggest one more piece of logic? An IP block is automatically released if a non-banned user logs in on it. (which means that the IP has been reassigned away from the vandal)
Hrmm. I thought part of the joy of IP blocks was that vandal user accounts can't come in from that IP either. I've used this at least once to ban a logged- in vandal.
If a user on the same IP continues the pattern of vandalism, surely we would ban that user?
A vandal shouldn't be able to escape the block by creating new user accounts (or falling back to user accounts that already exist)
Perhaps creation of user accounts should be disallowed if the IP number is temporarily blocked.
Allan Crossman wrote:
May I suggest one more piece of logic? An IP block is automatically released if a non-banned user logs in on it. (which means that the IP has been reassigned away from the vandal)
Hrmm. I thought part of the joy of IP blocks was that vandal user accounts can't come in from that IP either. I've used this at least once to ban a logged- in vandal.
A vandal shouldn't be able to escape the block by creating new user accounts (or falling back to user accounts that already exist)
Yes, I don't think it would be a good idea to have them automatically released. It's far more likely that it's a banned user trying to circumvent the system than another person altogether.
I myself would like to suggest a feature: when we get sysop ability to ban logged-in users, the last IP of a banned user should itself be banned for, oh, an hour or so (without actually revealing the IP address to any non-developer, if there are privacy concerns). Is that feasible?
It's already done. But it's for 24 hours, not 1. And the IP address is revealed.
Note the part about not revealing the IP address - this shouldn't become a way for sysops to determine arbitrary users' IP addresses, by banning them briefly (though actually I would like to be able to check IP addresses, but I guess if we're going to have a privacy policy we can't do that).
Yes, the privacy concerns are significant. I think I will do something about it. Thanks for pointing it out.
-- Tim Starling.
On Tue, 02 Sep 2003 11:40:17 +1000, Tim Starling ts4294967296@hotmail.com gave utterance to the following:
Allan Crossman wrote:
May I suggest one more piece of logic? An IP block is automatically released if a non-banned user logs in on it. (which means that the IP has been reassigned away from the vandal)
Hrmm. I thought part of the joy of IP blocks was that vandal user accounts can't come in from that IP either. I've used this at least once to ban a logged- in vandal.
A vandal shouldn't be able to escape the block by creating new user accounts (or falling back to user accounts that already exist)
Yes, I don't think it would be a good idea to have them automatically released. It's far more likely that it's a banned user trying to circumvent the system than another person altogether.
Which is why I said non-banned. Presumably the system knows which user-names are banned. I guess have in mind that there should be two levels of banning usernames: permanent, and short term (maybe 24 or 48 hours cooling off time, with a 3 strikes policy).
And at an even milder level, we could maybe have an "educate" function: When reverting a change by a first-timer, the IP gets stored and the next editing attempt by that IP gets redirected to an education page WITHOUT a 24-hour block.
wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org