Talk:Global blocking

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

Archives 1

[edit] Points for further discussion

I'm pointing the questions on the draft here for discussion; we can move the conclusions of that discussion to the policy page when we're ready.  – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 16:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Widespread vandalism

• Point for discussion: how widespread? Should we define that?

Two basic issues (to me) here.

1. Info derived from CU data where IPs have been exploited to create vandal accounts on a number of wikis
2. Simply "badly behaved" IPs. I would often find vandalism from IPs on en wb & discovered that they had long blocks on en wp & had "migrated" elsewhere

Maybe simplistic but a starter for 10. The former probably should be considered for long blocks, the latter I think would more be a case of showing them we can do it? Certainly in both cases I would suggest that if three wikis were affected it would be worth examining in detail? --Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

10 is a fine number to me, but one should also take into account the history - if there is some strong indication they will be affecting many wiki shortly, there is no need to wait until they hit #10 before taking action.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 19:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Widespread spamming

• Point for discussion: How do we determine 'clear disregard'? Must we warn them?

• • Static IPs who change domain 'on the fly'.
  • Static IPs who have a wide range of domains.
  • Static IPs who consistently push links in inappropriate ways which are widely used across many wikis, and which do have legitimate use.
  • SpamBots can be blocked while waiting for the blacklisting to kick in.

I dont think they should be warned, because such spambots would certainly not stop the vandalism if they get a warning. --MF-W 17:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Some sort of communication is necessary unless the editor's actions are clearly malicious. The IP spammer referred to here was clearly acting maliciously. Furthermore, we know that there was communication because as soon as each domain was blacklisted and it took effect, they switched to a new domain and continued. Given the number of domains for which this occurred, there is no doubt that this person/bot knew their actions were disruptive, and that a swift global block was needed to prevent further disruption. In such cases where leaving a message on a talk page somewhere is totally ineffective, I agree that doing so is not needed. But where it would potentially be effective, it should be done, and communicating through blacklisting domains is one method of (very clear) communication.  – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 19:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

warning spambots won't really help but firstly you must try to find out if its a spambot or a very funny human :p Spambots are always looking for trouble, and they hardly ever desist and are always persistent in self-promoting themselves/links. and since spam blacklist have a habit of taking minutes to 'kick in', it really is a good idea to block these ips because when and if it kicks in, the bot controllers might realise it and change the links to avoid being blocked, and its safer to know that the Ip in questions won't be used for spamming again , than only adding the spamlink to the blacklist and allowing the bot to go on a spree with some other url spamlink..--Cometstyles 21:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Again I'm with Cometstyles - warning is not really an option across wikis with quite fast moving bot style edits. To me the warning arrives by way of the block. Depending on the activity the block might not need to be long (open proxies, static IPs may be different). To me this tool is to prevent disruption not punish per se. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:11, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear, that is what I mean. Blacklisting or a block is as much warning as some deserve - requiring more than that is not a good idea.  – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 20:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I am all for warning, but we don't have such a tool (yet?). Global messaging may do the trick, but warning an IP at the moment is impossible, you never know which of the 722 (?) mediawiki wikis (if not other wikis) they hit next. If the IP keeps adding external links, a short block while blacklisting kicks in is at the moment the only possibility.

Do we need to discuss short (say, which can be measured in maximum several hours) and long-term blocks differently here? For blacklisting external links an hour block should be enough (administrators can add the links spammed, investigate if there are other domains likely to be spammed (e.g. domains on same server, see the -pics.com spammer of a couple of days ago) and add those too, and let the block expire). But for long-time vandalism or spam-bots that may not be enough. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} (en: U, T) 17:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blatantly disrupting multiple projects

• Point for discussion: How do we define this to effectively manage disruption but ensure that each project is still sovereign?

I'm not sure I understand what cases this section is supposed to cover - spamming and vandalism are already covered above, and open proxy abuse is covered below.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 19:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks? Disrupting the community in more projects? This would not be quite new... -jkb- (cs.source) 19:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that can be controlled adequately on a project-by-project basis. Perhaps there have been examples where a global block would have been necessary though...?  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 22:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think making global blocks for personal attacks is a good idea. That is something the local community should deal with IMO. —Giggy 00:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Open proxies

• Point for discussion: How do we deal with Chinese editors trying to edit through proxies from inside the Great Firewall? I'm not really happy with this line just yet
  • Also whitelist Chinese proxies on chinese wiki(s)?? System for account creation, as these blocks are supposed to block only the IP-editing?

Maybe on chinese wikis, the blocked IP adresses should still be able to create accounts, since the crosswiki vandalbots usually dont create such; but this could cause that they create accounts what would disrupt the global blocking idea. --MF-W 17:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It not really a good idea to Block any proxies unless it disrupts wikimedia and if the OP is being used for vandalism by humans, then it will be blocked for a short period of time but if its done by bots, which can usually be differentiated easily, then longer bans may be in order...--Cometstyles 21:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree completely with Cometstyles. I ceased to be comfortable with OP blocks just because that is what they are a long time ago. Quite a lot of constructive work comes from OP across the project. Truly exploited ones maybe but that is covered by the "vandalism" one above. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps have all global proxy blocks as softblocks (anon only) and put up a well publicised list of emails people can send to to request account creation over that block? giggy _(:O) 01:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not difficult for an editor in one country to use a proxy in another country. How do we know if it is really a Chinese editor using a Chinese proxy?--Cato 23:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Blocking open proxies because they are open proxies is really not an acceptable use of this tool, I think. That said, there will certainly be open proxies blocked because they are being abused.  – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 01:11, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Question on local wiki unblocking

Steward handbook#IP address blocks notes global blocks can be lifte don a particularly wiki (3rd paragraph). Thus on Commons I've created MediaWiki:Globalblocking-blocked and added an option to the unblock request template for removing a global block.

Is it worth doing this, and is there anything else that should be done? —Giggy 00:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

yes, its fine but since IP's are blocked globally for a reason, it will be good to tell the stewards as to the reason why it was removed from a particular wiki, here in meta so there are no misunderstandings in the future regarding this ...--Cometstyles 00:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Another question while I'm here; do IP block exemptions (which all admins have) override global blocks? (eg. if my IP was global blocked, could I still edit Commons?) —Giggy 00:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

yes, its like the spam blacklist on meta, its global but some stuff on the spamblacklist can be whitelisted on another wiki and thus can be used..so yes, IP-block exempt overrides global blocking ..--Cometstyles 01:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Logging details

Is there any other slightly more detailed accounting done anywhere of why x range or IP was blocked? The log entries in some cases are kind of vague. rootology (T) 01:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

hmm good point, I'll ask the stewards to make a Global blocking/List (and I'll probably update them myself) and list detailed reasons as to why an Ip or and Ip range was blocked so inquisitive admins from other wikis will know the reason for the block since the edit summaries may not be that clear..--Cometstyles 01:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. It'd make it easier to track down the wheres and whys (may be especially useful for us on Commons, since people come from all over). :) rootology (T) 01:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

How should we deal range blocks? When should global range blocks be okay? See for instance 173.32.0.0/16 and 189.81.0.0/16 -- sj | help translate |+

I'd suggest to place them or not in consultation with other stewards, keeping in mind the principles discussed on these pages (minimum blocking, only when necessary, only for cross-wiki stuff etc...)  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 00:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] double blocking

I would like to clear following two cases: A. I have blocked an IP on a project; then, after further vandalisms, the same IP is global blocked by a steward; and B. vice versa - a steward blocks the IP globally, then I will block the IP locally. What happens?

• will the second blockee get a message that the IP is blocked - globally or in the second case locally?
• which block overrides the other?
• I blocked the IP indef for heavy vandalism, then a steward blocked the IP for one month only: which block length is valid, and will I get a message about it locally?

Thanks, -jkb- (cs.source) 20:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

hmm not sure about which message that Ip will get but I'm very sure that the local block overrides the global one, so even if the so even if the global block expires, the local block stays but if the IP is blocked longer globally than locally and a local admin wants to remove that block, they should unblock the IP using the Special:GlobalBlockWhitelist and check the small box which says Disable this global block on <nameofwiki> and that Ip will be able to edit that wiki freely without it being affected by the global block..--Cometstyles 21:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

OK OK, that's what I wanted to know (by the way, sure, every local bureaucrat should know the white list so I do). Important seems to be that the local block can (in most cases) override the global one. More over, it is easier for the local bureaucrat to get the knowledge about global blocks (one click or two), the steward would have a little bit more to do (some 745 clicks or so I guess...). So, thanks for the answer, regards, -jkb- (cs.source) 21:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no "overriding". Both blocks apply (and therefore, restrictions from the two blocks are additive). Werdna 00:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, mea culpa; so in efect, additiv means, that the longer block is valid and will not be shortened by the short one, won't it? -jkb- (cs.source) 06:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct. Werdna 05:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User talk?

Would the globally blocked user still be able to edit his user talk pages, as with normal blocks, or would he only be able to edit at Meta? --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 23:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

They can edit their talk pages on any single wiki and request for unblock in that respected wiki --Mardetanha ^talk 23:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Not sure about the above, but the blocks do not apply at all on Meta, so they may come here to discuss things.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 22:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Equally unsure (per Mike), but ideally the block message given would point to a place to appeal (Steward requests/Global). I'm not sure if the current one does that. —Giggy 05:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Um, you can't edit your user talk page through a global block. I don't know where Mardetanha got that idea. Werdna 05:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

That might be a good thing to change - for instance to allow a globally blocked user to request to be added to the local Whitelist. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 13:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

---

Users are not globally blocked but locked so that they can't log-in exept on meta. Regards, —DerHexer (Talk) 13:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Translation

This needs to be done. Very important for a very important function. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I've created and added {{Other languages/Global blocking}}. I could whip up a weak French translation, but I think it's better for everyone if we wait for some fluent speakers to come help out now. —Giggy 09:14, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Giving this permission to Global sysop