Stewards acting locally

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

Stewards acting locally

arablue99
This post was updated on .
CONTENTS DELETED
The author has deleted this message.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Stewards acting locally

Jesse (Pathoschild)
On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 9:04 AM, Aaron Adrignola
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> It is irritating to continually see stewards making local blocks at the
> English language Wikibooks with the comment "crosswiki abuse <! --globally
> locked[1]; about bot[2]-- >".

These local blocks are made when the account has been globally locked
by a steward (see http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/SH#lock ). There can
be no further undermining of local community autonomy, because the
local account is blocked with or without an explicit local block. The
local blocks are implemented automatically as a way for local
communities to know the user is blocked, since there is no other local
indication of the implicit block. (The bot scans for unreverted edits
on each wiki, so blocking them while it's there is no trouble.)

Would you prefer the bot explicitly ignore your wikis? I can modify it
to skip them, although local blocks will still be used when necessary
to globally suppress attacks names.

--
Yours cordially,
Jesse (Pathoschild)

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Stewards acting locally

Federico Leva (Nemo)
Jesse (Pathoschild), 08/08/2010 16:53:

> On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 9:04 AM, Aaron Adrignola
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> It is irritating to continually see stewards making local blocks at the
>> English language Wikibooks with the comment "crosswiki abuse <! --globally
>> locked[1]; about bot[2]-- >".
>
> These local blocks are made when the account has been globally locked
> by a steward (see http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/SH#lock ). There can
> be no further undermining of local community autonomy, because the
> local account is blocked with or without an explicit local block. The
> local blocks are implemented automatically as a way for local
> communities to know the user is blocked, since there is no other local
> indication of the implicit block.

I'm ok with those block, but if this is all you want, why isn't a short
block enough? It would leave a trace in the local logs, although it
wouldn't be displayed on [[Special:Contributions]].

Nemo

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Stewards acting locally

James Alexander-3
While I've had my own issues with Stewards reaching into local communities I
actually think these blocks are important and very useful for our xwiki
abusers. While the transparency reasoning that Pathoschild mentioned is true
and important just as if not more important is the autoblocks (where at
least a day or so block makes sense).

Global locking does not have any autoblock like feature and we have a large
portion of our xwiki abusers (and even a growing number of those who only
attack only one or two sites and have figured out the global login system)
who will take advantage of this and go to another wiki, create the account
and SUL over to whatever project they want to attack. This is also the issue
with abusive names (they often don't even edit, that isn't the point).

If the stewards can't implement these autoblocks it is easier for abusers to
use wikibooks as a starting point for abuse, just because they didn't edit
there doesn't mean that they didn't use the project as a spring board or
that they couldn't in the future since it is obvious they know the project
exists and will now try it when they go trying to create new accounts.
Globally locking active xwiki vandals is almost useless if they are able to
just  recreate accounts continually or at least until they SUL onto a wiki
without local CUs so that a Steward can check and a global IP block can be
implemented.


James Alexander
[hidden email]
[hidden email]


On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 12:40 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) <[hidden email]>wrote:

> Jesse (Pathoschild), 08/08/2010 16:53:
> > On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 9:04 AM, Aaron Adrignola
> > <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >> It is irritating to continually see stewards making local blocks at the
> >> English language Wikibooks with the comment "crosswiki abuse <!
> --globally
> >> locked[1]; about bot[2]-- >".
> >
> > These local blocks are made when the account has been globally locked
> > by a steward (see http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/SH#lock ). There can
> > be no further undermining of local community autonomy, because the
> > local account is blocked with or without an explicit local block. The
> > local blocks are implemented automatically as a way for local
> > communities to know the user is blocked, since there is no other local
> > indication of the implicit block.
>
> I'm ok with those block, but if this is all you want, why isn't a short
> block enough? It would leave a trace in the local logs, although it
> wouldn't be displayed on [[Special:Contributions]].
>
> Nemo
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Stewards acting locally

arablue99
This post was updated on .
CONTENTS DELETED
The author has deleted this message.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Stewards acting locally

James Alexander-3
On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 6:29 PM, Aaron Adrignola
<[hidden email]>wrote:

> I appreciate your detailed explanation.  If a page at Meta could be created
> to explain this and linked to from the edit summaries this would do much to
> eliminate confusion amongst local administrators.  I do have a concern,
> however.  I've checked the SUL statuses for many of these accounts blocked
> locally and usually the local blocks only affect less than 20 wikis.
>  What's
> to say that a mischievous individual couldn't register at one of the other
> 700 wikis without blocks/autoblock in place and do the same thing?  This
> seems to be a problem in need of a technical solution rather than one that
> creates the situation that prompted my original message.  As it is, it
> seems
> that even if local blocks for global locks are performed at Wikibooks (and
> elsewhere), you are still going to need to do a CU regardless.
>
> -- User:Adrignola
>
>
There is a lot of truth to that and I totally agree. It would be very nice
to find a way to get an autoblock feature in to  global locking at least for
a short bit (which may well both help limit the need of CUs and help to make
things easier on the stewards). Actually I'll see if there is a bug filed
and if not I'll file it from talking to Pathoschild it sounds like it may
not be technically easy but is always worth trying to find better meathods.
I totally understand your concern about them using the other 700 wikis, I
have similar ones. There does seem some truth to the idea that they often
seem to just use the easiest to find projects or the ones they have already
found but that is obviously not always the case.

James
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Stewards acting locally

Platonides
In reply to this post by arablue99
Aaron Adrignola wrote:

> I appreciate your detailed explanation.  If a page at Meta could be created
> to explain this and linked to from the edit summaries this would do much to
> eliminate confusion amongst local administrators.  I do have a concern,
> however.  I've checked the SUL statuses for many of these accounts blocked
> locally and usually the local blocks only affect less than 20 wikis.  What's
> to say that a mischievous individual couldn't register at one of the other
> 700 wikis without blocks/autoblock in place and do the same thing?  This
> seems to be a problem in need of a technical solution rather than one that
> creates the situation that prompted my original message.  As it is, it seems
> that even if local blocks for global locks are performed at Wikibooks (and
> elsewhere), you are still going to need to do a CU regardless.
>
> -- User:Adrignola

Autoblocking suppressed accounts (Bug 23114) is implemented
(r64982,r65184,r65185). It just needs to be reviewed and deployed.


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Stewards acting locally

James Alexander-3
On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 7:12 PM, Platonides <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Aaron Adrignola wrote:
> > I appreciate your detailed explanation.  If a page at Meta could be
> created
> > to explain this and linked to from the edit summaries this would do much
> to
> > eliminate confusion amongst local administrators.  I do have a concern,
> > however.  I've checked the SUL statuses for many of these accounts
> blocked
> > locally and usually the local blocks only affect less than 20 wikis.
>  What's
> > to say that a mischievous individual couldn't register at one of the
> other
> > 700 wikis without blocks/autoblock in place and do the same thing?  This
> > seems to be a problem in need of a technical solution rather than one
> that
> > creates the situation that prompted my original message.  As it is, it
> seems
> > that even if local blocks for global locks are performed at Wikibooks
> (and
> > elsewhere), you are still going to need to do a CU regardless.
> >
> > -- User:Adrignola
>
> Autoblocking suppressed accounts (Bug 23114) is implemented
> (r64982,r65184,r65185). It just needs to be reviewed and deployed.
>
>
> Ah ha! globally suppressed accounts only I gather? (so not normally locked
ones) May be beneficial to have it as an option for stewards while locking
any account and not just ones that need to be suppressed.


James Alexander
[hidden email]
[hidden email]
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Stewards acting locally

Tim Starling-2
In reply to this post by James Alexander-3
On 09/08/10 03:17, James Alexander wrote:
> Global locking does not have any autoblock like feature and we have a large
> portion of our xwiki abusers (and even a growing number of those who only
> attack only one or two sites and have figured out the global login system)
> who will take advantage of this and go to another wiki, create the account
> and SUL over to whatever project they want to attack.

Is there a request in Bugzilla to fix this?

-- Tim Starling


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Stewards acting locally

MZMcBride-2
Tim Starling wrote:
> On 09/08/10 03:17, James Alexander wrote:
>> Global locking does not have any autoblock like feature and we have a large
>> portion of our xwiki abusers (and even a growing number of those who only
>> attack only one or two sites and have figured out the global login system)
>> who will take advantage of this and go to another wiki, create the account
>> and SUL over to whatever project they want to attack.
>
> Is there a request in Bugzilla to fix this?

I think he's referring to bug 17929 ("CentralAuth lock/hide should trigger
global autoblocks").[1]

Related bugs are 15294 ("Allow blocking of global accounts") and 23114
("CentralAuth: global suppression with this extension should use
autoblock").[2][3]

Bug 23114 is marked fixed, though I don't know if that means it's live on
Wikimedia wikis and I don't know if "global suppression" is treated the same
as "global locking."

MZMcBride

[1] https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17929
[2] https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15294
[3] https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=23114



_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l