Internet Brands, or at least IBobi, has decided to start trolling Wikivoyage, bringing trumped-up charges against a community member, then engaging in IBobi's usual modus operandi: claiming we're not following our own policies, crying persecution, and the same stuff he pulled on Meta-Wiki and en.wikipedia.
An IP address registered to Internet Brands has continued the abuse after IBobi was blocked.
It seems like this might be relevant in WMF's current legal case against IB.
Powers &8^]
On Mon, 3 Dec 2012 21:41:14 -0500, Powers wrote:
Internet Brands, or at least IBobi, has decided to start trolling Wikivoyage, bringing trumped-up charges against a community member, then engaging in IBobi's usual modus operandi: claiming we're not following our own policies, crying persecution, and the same stuff he pulled on Meta-Wiki and en.wikipedia.
An IP address registered to Internet Brands has continued the abuse after IBobi was blocked.
It seems like this might be relevant in WMF's current legal case against IB.
Powers &8^]
Why do not you just block the ip and forget about them? It is clear that they are not going to contribute constructively.
Cheers Yaroslav
Why do not you just block the ip and forget about them? It is clear that they are not going to contribute constructively.
Cheers Yaroslav
That's a good question.
Our blocking policy specifically states that blocking is a last resort, and represents a failure of the community. This is especially true with IP addresses, which may be shared; blocking them may also catch legitimate users.
And of course there's the technical issue of determining which IPs to block.
Powers &8^]
On 4 December 2012 13:12, Powers LtPowers_Wiki@rochester.rr.com wrote:
Why do not you just block the ip and forget about them? It is clear that they are not going to contribute constructively.
Cheers Yaroslav
That's a good question.
Our blocking policy specifically states that blocking is a last resort, and represents a failure of the community. This is especially true with IP addresses, which may be shared; blocking them may also catch legitimate users.
I was first surprised when I read this policy, coming from the English Wikipedia where all the admins are trigger happy in terms of blocking. ;-) However, I see that there is currently a ban nomination for IBobi at http://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Wikivoyage:User_ban_nominations#Outstanding_no..., which I believe which appears to have support thus far in favour of banning IBobi.
And of course there's the technical issue of determining which IPs to block.
In terms of determining which IPs to block, as the ban nomination page states, on the rest of the Wikimedia Foundation sister projects we have an extension installed, "CheckUser" that allows a user with elevated permissions, i.e. "checkusers" to find the IPs of any user account that they can choose to perform a checkuser on. These users are highly trusted, having been appointed either by strong community consensus in communities with out an Arbritration Committee or by ArbCom for those that have one (such as the English Wikipedia). You can read more about our checkuser policies at Meta-Wiki, http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/CheckUser_policy.
The checkuser user right exists on Wikivoyage at present, but no users (as far as I know) have been appointed as checkusers. A number of our checkusers (and indeed admins) are quite experienced in terms of knowing what IP ranges to block and what potential collateral damage there may be, if more information about the technicalities is required I can ask one of them to comment on the ban nomination page?
The checkuser user right exists on Wikivoyage at present, but no users (as far as I know) have been appointed as checkusers. A number of our checkusers (and indeed admins) are quite experienced in terms of knowing what IP ranges to block and what potential collateral damage there may be, if more information about the technicalities is required I can ask one of them to comment on the ban nomination page?
For projects where no chackusers have been appointed, stewards act as checkused. English Wikipedia checkuser who are not stewards have no authority and I believe no technical means to check users on another project.
Cheers Yaroslav
On 4 December 2012 14:47, Yaroslav M. Blanter putevod@mccme.ru wrote:
For projects where no chackusers have been appointed, stewards act as checkused. English Wikipedia checkuser who are not stewards have no authority and I believe no technical means to check users on another project.
Yes sorry, I meant that as far as I am aware, we've already checkusered IBobi (and various IB sock accounts) on the English Wikipedia so, as mentioned on that ban nomination, we already have some of the ranges that we can block.
On 4 December 2012 14:49, Thehelpfulone thehelpfulonewiki@gmail.com wrote:
Yes sorry, I meant that as far as I am aware, we've already checkusered IBobi (and various IB sock accounts) on the English Wikipedia so, as mentioned on that ban nomination, we already have some of the ranges that we can block.
Sorry correction, there has not been an SPI case or checkusering of any accounts from what I can tell onwiki. It would appear that those ranges have been derived from anonymous edits rather than associated with any particular IB* account.
wikivoyage-l@lists.wikimedia.org