Planned change to default IP blocking behavior

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
15 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Planned change to default IP blocking behavior

Brion Vibber
A few months ago the ability was added to limit IP blocks to allow
logged-in contributions to continue. This allowed finer-grained blocking
of troublemakers on shared IPs (schools, AOL etc).

There's some suggestion to make this the default mode. I wanted to
announce this ahead of time since it will change what happens when
admins make a block without manually clicking something extra.

If there's no serious objection, we'll go ahead and change this in a few
days.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Planned change to default IP blocking behavior

Aaron Schulz
Seems fine by me, since it seems to simply check the anon-only for AOL IPs by default.

One related thing that would  be really nice is no have the autoblocker not go off for AOL user blocks.

Brion Vibber wrote
A few months ago the ability was added to limit IP blocks to allow
logged-in contributions to continue. This allowed finer-grained blocking
of troublemakers on shared IPs (schools, AOL etc).

There's some suggestion to make this the default mode. I wanted to
announce this ahead of time since it will change what happens when
admins make a block without manually clicking something extra.

If there's no serious objection, we'll go ahead and change this in a few
days.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Planned change to default IP blocking behavior

P. Birken
In reply to this post by Brion Vibber
We have made the experience that from most schools, there are never
ever useful contributions. Hundreds of If the IP-block can be
circumvented easily by creating accounts, this will only create more
work on the vandalism front, see also
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kategorie%3AIP-Sperrung

Regarding AOL I have always thought that workarounds for their
IP-range should be done by AOL and not by us.

Philipp
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Planned change to default IP blocking behavior

Erik Moeller-4
On 10/18/06, P. Birken <[hidden email]> wrote:
> We have made the experience that from most schools, there are never
> ever useful contributions. Hundreds of If the IP-block can be
> circumvented easily by creating accounts, this will only create more
> work on the vandalism front, see also
> http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kategorie%3AIP-Sperrung

As I understand it, the proposal is to default-check the first
checkbox (block anonymous users only). Account creation would continue
to be prevented by default.
--
Peace & Love,
Erik

Member, Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees

DISCLAIMER: Unless otherwise stated, all views or opinions expressed
in this message are solely my own and do not represent an official
position of the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Planned change to default IP blocking behavior

magiske prosesser
In reply to this post by P. Birken
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 10:13:21 +0200
  "P. Birken" <[hidden email]> wrote:
> We have made the experience that from most schools,
>there are never
> ever useful contributions. Hundreds of If the IP-block
>can be
> circumvented easily by creating accounts, this will only
>create more
> work on the vandalism front, see also
> http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kategorie%3AIP-Sperrung

I believe the perspective you present is somewhat
constricted as we ought to take into account that a lot of
these "vandals" having been introduced to Wikipedia in the
confining and not often inspiring environment of school in
many cases will come back to us of their own volition to
contribute with something valuable. Perhaps therefore the
nuisance is outweighed when the bigger picture is
considered. Since this connection isn't easily spotted or
documented (and hence not acknowledged), it would be easy
to adopt a preventive practice such as you advocate,
however, we might not in the end be better off for it.

Halvor (User:meco)

--
email to and from this person will be subject to public
availability
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Planned change to default IP blocking behavior

P. Birken
In reply to this post by Erik Moeller-4
2006/10/18, Erik Moeller <[hidden email]>:
> As I understand it, the proposal is to default-check the first
> checkbox (block anonymous users only). Account creation would continue
> to be prevented by default.

In that case, I have no serious objections.

Philipp
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Planned change to default IP blocking behavior

metasj
In reply to this post by magiske prosesser
+++ magiske prosesser [18/10/06 10:22 +0100]:

>On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 10:13:21 +0200
>  "P. Birken" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> We have made the experience that from most schools,
>>there are never
>> ever useful contributions. Hundreds of If the IP-block
>>can be
>> circumvented easily by creating accounts, this will only
>>create more
>> work on the vandalism front, see also
>> http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kategorie%3AIP-Sperrung
>
>I believe the perspective you present is somewhat
>constricted as we ought to take into account that a lot of
>these "vandals" having been introduced to Wikipedia in the
>confining and not often inspiring environment of school in
>many cases will come back to us of their own volition to
>contribute with something valuable. Perhaps therefore the
>nuisance is outweighed when the bigger picture is
>considered. Since this connection isn't easily spotted or
>documented (and hence not acknowledged), it would be easy
>to adopt a preventive practice such as you advocate,
>however, we might not in the end be better off for it.
>
>Halvor (User:meco)

Hear, hear!  Halvor, I like this train of thought.   ---SJ
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Planned change to default IP blocking behavior

P. Birken
2006/10/18, [hidden email] <[hidden email]>:

> Hear, hear!  Halvor, I like this train of thought.   ---SJ

Really? I consider the theory that people who write I FUCKED YOUR
MAMA! into articles might turn into brilliant contributors one day,
because we let them do it to be not so well thought out.

Cheers,

Philipp
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Planned change to default IP blocking behavior

Sean Whitton (Xyrael)
I would agree with switching the boxes - we need to assume good faith
with blocks, not the opposite. However, I agree that a lot of blocks
would need the box ticking - it would make sysops without scripts
think about it before hitting the button.

Just my thoughts.

S

On 18/10/06, P. Birken <[hidden email]> wrote:

> 2006/10/18, [hidden email] <[hidden email]>:
>
> > Hear, hear!  Halvor, I like this train of thought.   ---SJ
>
> Really? I consider the theory that people who write I FUCKED YOUR
> MAMA! into articles might turn into brilliant contributors one day,
> because we let them do it to be not so well thought out.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Philipp
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


--
        —Xyrael / Sean Whitton ~ Knowledge is power, but only wisdom is liberty
                [hidden email] | xyrael.net
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Planned change to default IP blocking behavior

Walter Vermeir-2
Sean Whitton schreef:
> I would agree with switching the boxes - we need to assume good faith
> with blocks, not the opposite. However, I agree that a lot of blocks
> would need the box ticking - it would make sysops without scripts
> think about it before hitting the button.
>
> Just my thoughts.
>
> S

When the new blocking options where created user w:en:user:Lupin posted
some javascript to change the default blocking options. I suppose that
will still work when the default options are changed.

So users or wikis can override the default options if the wish to do so.

See;
http://en.wikizine.org/2006/07/wikizine-number-34_17.html

--
Contact: walter AT wikizine DOT org
Wikizine.org - news for and about the Wikimedia community

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Planned change to default IP blocking behavior

Sean Whitton (Xyrael)
I agree, but I think by having the default settings as I suggest, the
right message is being sent out. However, you're right - it's trivial
to override it in monobook.

S

On 18/10/06, Walter Vermeir <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Sean Whitton schreef:
> > I would agree with switching the boxes - we need to assume good faith
> > with blocks, not the opposite. However, I agree that a lot of blocks
> > would need the box ticking - it would make sysops without scripts
> > think about it before hitting the button.
> >
> > Just my thoughts.
> >
> > S
>
> When the new blocking options where created user w:en:user:Lupin posted
> some javascript to change the default blocking options. I suppose that
> will still work when the default options are changed.
>
> So users or wikis can override the default options if the wish to do so.
>
> See;
> http://en.wikizine.org/2006/07/wikizine-number-34_17.html
>
> --
> Contact: walter AT wikizine DOT org
> Wikizine.org - news for and about the Wikimedia community
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


--
        —Xyrael / Sean Whitton ~ Knowledge is power, but only wisdom is liberty
                [hidden email] | xyrael.net
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Planned change to default IP blocking behavior

Effe iets anders
As I understand it it is also possible to set the standard locally
different, so why changing it globally? I think it would be best if
the communities make these decisions themselves and define it in their
monobook.

But one way or another, I think it is very important that it is easy
for another sysop to see in the log how the block was performed. Is it
possible that an additional note will be added to the blocklog and the
blocklist, telling what type of block was performed? (with or without
blocking logged in users, with or without blocking accountcreation) I
think that is very important, as we are having a lot of problems with
that when people come complain through OTRS for instance.

Effeietsanders

2006/10/19, Sean Whitton <[hidden email]>:

> I agree, but I think by having the default settings as I suggest, the
> right message is being sent out. However, you're right - it's trivial
> to override it in monobook.
>
> S
>
> On 18/10/06, Walter Vermeir <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Sean Whitton schreef:
> > > I would agree with switching the boxes - we need to assume good faith
> > > with blocks, not the opposite. However, I agree that a lot of blocks
> > > would need the box ticking - it would make sysops without scripts
> > > think about it before hitting the button.
> > >
> > > Just my thoughts.
> > >
> > > S
> >
> > When the new blocking options where created user w:en:user:Lupin posted
> > some javascript to change the default blocking options. I suppose that
> > will still work when the default options are changed.
> >
> > So users or wikis can override the default options if the wish to do so.
> >
> > See;
> > http://en.wikizine.org/2006/07/wikizine-number-34_17.html
> >
> > --
> > Contact: walter AT wikizine DOT org
> > Wikizine.org - news for and about the Wikimedia community
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
>
> --
>         —Xyrael / Sean Whitton ~ Knowledge is power, but only wisdom is liberty
>                 [hidden email] | xyrael.net
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Planned change to default IP blocking behavior

Brion Vibber
effe iets anders wrote:
> As I understand it it is also possible to set the standard locally
> different, so why changing it globally? I think it would be best if
> the communities make these decisions themselves and define it in their
> monobook.

Inconsistency in behavior is not good; it makes administrative actions
confusing and error-prone.

> But one way or another, I think it is very important that it is easy
> for another sysop to see in the log how the block was performed. Is it
> possible that an additional note will be added to the blocklog and the
> blocklist, telling what type of block was performed?

This is already logged, as far as I know.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Planned change to default IP blocking behavior

Alphax (Wikipedia email)
Brion Vibber wrote:

> effe iets anders wrote:
>> As I understand it it is also possible to set the standard locally
>> different, so why changing it globally? I think it would be best if
>> the communities make these decisions themselves and define it in their
>> monobook.
>
> Inconsistency in behavior is not good; it makes administrative actions
> confusing and error-prone.
>
>> But one way or another, I think it is very important that it is easy
>> for another sysop to see in the log how the block was performed. Is it
>> possible that an additional note will be added to the blocklog and the
>> blocklist, telling what type of block was performed?
>
> This is already logged, as far as I know.
>
It's not present on the blocklog, but is present on the blocklist.

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

signature.asc (581 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Planned change to default IP blocking behavior

Brion Vibber
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:

> Brion Vibber wrote:
>> effe iets anders wrote:
>>> As I understand it it is also possible to set the standard locally
>>> different, so why changing it globally? I think it would be best if
>>> the communities make these decisions themselves and define it in their
>>> monobook.
>> Inconsistency in behavior is not good; it makes administrative actions
>> confusing and error-prone.
>>
>>> But one way or another, I think it is very important that it is easy
>>> for another sysop to see in the log how the block was performed. Is it
>>> possible that an additional note will be added to the blocklog and the
>>> blocklist, telling what type of block was performed?
>> This is already logged, as far as I know.
>>
>
> It's not present on the blocklog, but is present on the blocklist.

Thanks for the reminder; I'll try to make sure this gets fixed.

For reference, this is logged in bugzilla; you can CC yourself to the
bug to receive a notification when a patch is posted or the fix made:
http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6638

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l