[Foundation-l] Fwd: Re: Fwd: Wikimedia-wide globalblocking mechanism?

Pedro Sanchez pdsanchez at gmail.com
Mon Feb 4 14:59:14 UTC 2008

On Feb 2, 2008 2:47 PM, mike.lifeguard <mike.lifeguard at gmail.com> wrote:
> >Ray Saintonge wrote:
> >If communities are going to insist that a steward desysop himself every
> >time he goes into a project to perform routine anti-vandalism it's easy
> >to see that it is more objectionable that they perform acts
> >automatically without ever logging themselves in.  Perhaps it would be
> >preferable that once a steward has properly given himself sysop rights
> >he retain those rights unless there is a specific objection from the
> >community.  That would be far more acceptable than any kind of automated
> >process.
> I'd be fine with that too, but it's really a moot point. This still requires
> a steward (or team of them) to go to each wiki individually to make the
> blocks - hardly the most efficient method. This proposed mechanism would
> simply automate the process, saving time and manpower. When dealing with a
> large number of spambots, or a persistent cross-wiki vandal [1], manpower is
> often a prime concern.
> Can we also try to remember that, as with the change pagemove upon
> autoconfirmed, we're talking mainly about wikis with a community not able to
> effectively fend off the spammers etc. I wrote [2] at the time that Heller
> would be proud of the requests to have wikis with no community ask to opt-in
> for such a measure; I think the same thing needs to be said here.
> Mike.lifeguard

Well, once the spambot has detected, it only takes a bot to blok it everywhere
so the hard part is detecting them, andI don't think we should be doing right
trusting a bot to detect vandalism and issue blocks everywhere

Maybe I'm misunderstanding something. But I really don't mind checking
that what I'm about to block deserves it indeed

More information about the foundation-l mailing list