[Foundation-l] Fwd: Wikimedia-wide global blocking mechanism?

[Brian McNeil]

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 at lists.wikimedia.org
[mailto:foundation-l-bounces at 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

> I'm on Checkuser-l and I'm not going to reveal which IP provoked this
> discussion. However the block was generally agreed at one year in this
case.
> Yes, it is our old friend Willy on Wheels.
>
> In cases like this where you are restricted to short blocks you are just
> making more work. When you've permanently blocked a dozen vandal accounts
> registered through an IP over a period of months you want the option to
> block the IP for a long term.
>
>
> Brian McNeil
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: foundation-l-bounces at lists.wikimedia.org
> [mailto:foundation-l-bounces at lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of effe iets
> anders
> Sent: 31 January 2008 19:39
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: Wikimedia-wide global blocking mechanism?
>
> 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 at gmail.com>:
>   
>> The ability for local sysops to override it would help this a bit, but
>> ideally, it should be restricted to blocking IPs only until SUL is
>> implemented.
>>
>> Dan Rosenthal wrote:
>>     
>>> 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:
>>>
>>>
>>>       
>>>> On 31/01/2008, Yaroslav M. Blanter <putevod at mccme.ru> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>>> For the global admin list, I was under understanding that stewards
>>>>> are
>>>>> actually doing the job.
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>>> Yes, stewards have a lot of the higher administrative powers for small
>>>> wikis that don't have much of a community yet. Including checkuser, so
>>>> the stewards using checkuser are on checkuser-l and haven't yet
>>>> screamed in horror at the notion ;-)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> - d.
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> foundation-l mailing list
>>>> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>>>> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>>>
>>>>         
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> foundation-l mailing list
>>> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>>> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>>
>>>
>>>       
>> --
>> Alex (en:User:Mr.Z-man)
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
>>     
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
>
>   

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l