Wikipedia talk:Autoblock

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1 Autoblock detects proxy server IPs rather than actual user public IPs
2 Google Web Accelerator
3 What are the numbers for?
4 Is there a way to filter Autoblocks by the blocking user?
5 question
6 Seriously Annoying
7 autoblocks SUCK
8 Queston about autoblock
9 Is there any point?
10 Autoblock bypass proposal
- 10.1 Autoblock bypass policy proposal #2 (a feature request)

[edit] Autoblock detects proxy server IPs rather than actual user public IPs

I was effected by collateral damage caused by an autoblock incident today, which led me to make two disturbing discoveries.

Autoblock incorrectly blocks the IPs of proxy servers instead of user IPs
The time out of 24 hours doesn't work, the IP of my proxy server remained blocked for more than 24 hours

These are very serious issues for wikipedia, the incorrect blocking of the proxy servers would likely prevented tens of thousands (or more) of Sydney wikipedians from making any edits.

What is the state of the code for the detection of user IP addresses? Aside from incorrectly interpreting proxy IPs as user IPs?

I have avoided putting this on the main page for WP:Autoblock as it is kinda embarassing. We need to sort this out ASAP. By comparison the time out of the autoblock seems minor.

Please advise me of what may be done.

BTW all users of the ISP tgp.com.au have no choice but to deal with the ISP's transparent proxy system, which works fine apart from when websites incorrectly detect the proxy IP as the user's public IP. This is a website's issue. Other websites have it correct http://whatismyipaddress.com/ for instance does a fine job detailing both the public IP and the proxy IP and the reverse DNS-lookup of the proxy server.

(I am writting this from a different Internet connection). Dananimal 08:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I tride to edit a talk page it sed useer is blocked wene I was autoblocked. I tride this by creating an ancant with a bad name and wate till I got blocked. The statement saning that autoblocked can edit talk pages is not true?.**My Cat inn @ (talk)** 01:35, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Google Web Accelerator

"Don't accelerate this website"

I was one of the lucky few to be invited to the beta of Google Web Accelerator during its launch. I've had no problems for almost a month... but, today, while trying to edit a page, I got a WikiMedia warning notice that my IP address was blocked from editing!

...except it's not my IP that was shown. The blocked IP was 72.14.194.19 ... I pay my ISP for a high-bandwidth high-availability DSL line with a static IP, and that certainly wasn't it. It, in fact, is one of the many IP addresses for the Google Web Accelerator cache proxies.

When you use GWA, the program "cheats" by keeping a web connection open the entire session instead of opening and closing per file like regular web accesses go. Typically, the first time you connect to a remote machine, it registers your ISP-assigned IP address as its incoming connection, but subsequent connections are provided through Google's proxy. Since your internet "pipe" is being used full time instead of constantly making and breaking connections, this speeds up many websites with little problem.

Of course, when someone else before you has vandalized a page and you happen to land on the same proxy as they just used for that session, you find yourself blocked as well.

There is a solution, however. Simply go to your Google Web Accelerator toolbar, click the "Accelerator" button, which brings up the GWA menu, and select "Don't accelerate this website." The latest versions of the software include this as a dialog box on the preferences page. Add en.wikipedia.org to the box marked for "Sites that you do not want to use Google Web Accelerator". You may want to do this for other sites that let you edit content and administer your account (such as DeviantART and MySpace).

[edit] What are the numbers for?

Why do autoblocks look like this?:
"Admin" blocked #[number] (expires [time])(Autoblocked because your IP...)
What is the number for? It seems random, jumping (for example) from #147619 to the next autoblock #147624. Why? --68.124.137.51 03:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

It's a mask, to keep the IP addresses used by logged-in contributors private. If the message said "12.34.56.78 (Autoblocked...used by User:Foo" then it would be obvious what IP User:Foo was using; instead, it gives a mask #12345 that has no obvious connection to the IP address, but if unblocked, will be used by the software to unblock the correct address. It's a matter of privacy for contributors. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 05:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is there a way to filter Autoblocks by the blocking user?

I want to check which autoblocks have been generated on the basis of blocks I have made, but can't find a way to filter the list (search filters on the blocked user not the blocking admin). Can anybody help? Cheers TigerShark 19:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Interiot pointed in the direction of this tool, which was written by Pgk and does most of what I wanted. Thanks Interiot! Cheers TigerShark 00:26, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] question

Will you get frozen if a vandal with the same IP address gets frozen? ("frozen" means blocked in(de)finitely) Frosty 20:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

As a rule, IPs don't get blocked indefinitely, only for 24 hours by autoblock. See the blocking policy for specifics. ~Kylu (u|t) 22:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Seriously Annoying

I have been autoblocked a number of times, and each time it was because the autoblock was intended for someone else. Your program is deeply flawed. I neither live in China nor do I use AOL, so the suggestions on how to deal with this annoyance are not applicable here. Clearly, your program is hindering the ability of editors who are not AOL users or living in China. Since your program affects so many different users in an adverse way, it is not unreasonable to suggest that it be scrapped or re-coded to remove this flaw. I appreciate the intent of the software, but the manner in which it executes it's task is unacceptable. Wandering Star 14:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] autoblocks SUCK

unfair to the common AOLer! Lenin wouldn't like the AOL Proletariat being blocked, right? Of course Jimbo Donal Stalin wouldn't like the common AOLers to leave, because then Wikipedia would get pwned! 205.188.116.131 21:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Queston about autoblock

Why when I try to edit different pages do I get different reasons and users who have been blocked, specfic to that page. Also is this new thing? I distinctly remember being assured I wouldn't be constantly blocked for being an AOL user after I created an account. It's a fairly pointless idea as anyone really that determined to vandalise wikipedia would find a way-if they are AOL users, open internet explorer and there ban is lifted for some other poor person to inherit. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Clomb (talk • contribs).

I might actually suggest that in the majority of cases, the best solution is to create a user account and simply continue to edit. If, as in your case, you've created a user account and still find yourself hit with blocks, please contact any admin (I'm around often, for instance) and provide us with the block number (it may refer to block #16436 or similar) that's affecting you. In most cases, the autoblock can be removed and you can continue with your editing. AOL users hit with an autoblock may also wish to simply wait a minute and refresh the page: Chances are the problem that caused the block is gone and you'll be able to edit again. Lastly, if you visit your talkpage ("my talk" at the top of the page) and put {{unblock}} on that page, an attentive admin may remove a block also. Please note that not all of these suggestions will work in all situations, also you may wish to click on the "unblock" in curly-brackets (called an "unblock template) to see more details on how it works. :) ~Kylu (u|t) 04:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is there any point?

...in using the unblock-auto template on your user talk page when your IP is dynamic and will probably change again within a minute? --WikiSlasher 08:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes. You'll still be blocked whether or not your IP changes. —[admin] Pathoschild 10:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about that but I guess I'll check the block logs the next time I'm able to edit after an autoblock. --WikiSlasher 11:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Yep you're wrong just then I did not remain autoblocked after my IP must've changed (I clicked to edit an article, got the "User is blocked" page, checked my block log and found I was not blocked directly, checked IP block log and found IP was blocked, went random article, clicked "edit" and was able to edit. Then I checked the IP block log again and there were no unblockings. Since I am able to edit now I logically conclude that my IP address changed and as a result I can now edit. (Although I checked the other kind of log to be sure just now and am now back on the other blocked IP address.)

Maybe it isn't pointless anyway. Even if the block doesn't last long it is still an inconvenience to anyone who happens to get the same IP address as a vandal. --WikiSlasher 13:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Autoblock bypass proposal

One way to reduce the collateral damage of autoblocks might be to allow users who have registered an email address to bypass autoblocks, so long as the email address doesn't match the email address of the blocked user (or perhaps, of any blocked user). It would be up to the blocking admin if a hard autoblock is used (the current behaviour), or a soft autoblock (the default, under this proposal), or no autoblock at all, as per the recently implemented option. Regards, Ben Aveling, thinking out loud. 02:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Advantages:

reduces collateral damage for some users.
No change for any user who doesn't have or doesn't want to register an email address

Disadvantages:

soft autoblocks can be bypassed by vandals with access to a supply of disposable email

This seems rather ineffective to me, given the existence of services like Mailinator. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 01:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

A good point. We would have to discount Mailinator addresses. In fact, we would have to have a list of sites whose email addresses don't allow a user to pass a soft-block. Ben Aveling 20:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but I also don't see how this is useful. --WikiSlasher 07:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

There are times when a hard autoblock impacts too many other users, but not autoblocking allows a vandal to pick another username and keep going. A soft autoblock would be less effective than a hard autoblock, but better than no autoblock, and it would impact less users than a hard autoblock would. Regards, Ben Aveling 20:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Looking again, I'm not sure I've addressed your comment. Do you mean not useful because you don't think people would use soft blocks, or because you don't think that soft blocks would stop any vandalism? Regards, Ben Aveling 06:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I mean probably not useful because a) the majority of contributors probably don't have an email address supplied and b) Vandals would just add an email address while they were signing up to avoid autoblocks. (And I like my idea better :D) --WikiSlasher 08:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Seems unworkable because of the ease of availability of free email addresses. Sure we could spend our time gathering lists of those to exclude but I doubt it's very practical. Persoanally I have a fair number of gmail invites, I can create a dummy account elsewhere, send a gmail invite and create a new gmail account for myself. Are we going to exclude gmail from this scheme? --pgk 22:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Autoblock bypass policy proposal #2 (a feature request)

I think it would be nice to have a status (that any admin can edit) of not being affected by autoblocks. Let's face it if a user makes 500+ non-vandalism edits it is not likely for them to vandalise. Autoblocks are used to get rid of troublesome vandals and there's no point autoblocking a username that existed a few months before the vandalism ever took place. Sorry if this has been asked before but if it has that just means I have even more support. We could have a page like Wikipedia:Requests for autoblock immunity for editors to be quickly reviewed and then approved for autoblock immunity. --WikiSlasher 06:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Seems reasonable, but I don't think the request page is needed. If a user is caught by an autoblock and uses the unblock template it should just be a matter of course for the admin to "tick the box". --pgk 22:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I have to point out that the autoblocker stops and deters more than just vandals. As it stands the autoblocker deters established editors from using sockpuppets to make personal attacks against or vandalise the userpages of other editors with whom they disagree with because a blocked sockpuppet will limit their ability to continue editing and repeated unblock-auto requests will raise enough suspicions for a administrators to call in Checkuser. -- Netsnipe ► 11:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I liked the non-vandal list idea, until I read Netsnipe's comment. I want all those puppeteers caught. Couldn't puppeteers lie and say they have an AOL account so no one would get suspicious of their repeated requests for unblocking? Jecowa 22:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Checkuser could determine they were not using AOL. --WikiSlasher 23:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Awesome. This checkuser sounds great. I think the checkuser should be made into a bot that constantly checks people for sockpuppetting. Jecowa 23:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't be too helpful for checking shared/dynamic IP addresses though --WikiSlasher 00:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/u/t/Wikipedia_talk%7EAutoblock_c4d9.html"