[Wikipedia-l] exicornt switch

Mon Mar 20 05:43:42 UTC 2006

Apparently, [[WP:BPP]] is the most current discussion of the matter on
English Wikipedia; it currently has a lot of support, as I hear the story
told. However, given the opposition from the devs, I just don't see it
happening without a Jimbo-level order to do it. He's the one we need to be
lobbying.

And yes, that was the reason: It would be of little use, because they would
just create sleeper accounts.

Essjay

On 3/19/06, Maru Dubshinki <marudubshinki at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 3/19/06, - Essjay - <essjaywiki at gmail.com> wrote:
> ...
> > 2) Bug 550 deals with the issue of allowing users who have accounts to
> edit
> > even if thier IP is blocked. The solution for it is quite simple; it's
> > actually three lines of code that can be written by anyone with minor
> PHP
> > skill. It requires the following:
> >
> > a) that the patch be enabled;
> > b) that account creation from blocked IPs be disabled (to prevent the
> > vandals from simply creating an account to sidestep the IP block) which
> to
> > my knowledge is already enabled
> > c) throttling account creation from IPs to x per day, currently 10 per
> day.
> > This allows legit people to create accounts, but prevents vandals from
> > creating 1000 sleeper accounts to use once the IP is blocked.
> >
> > The devs are aware of the fix, and are not willing to enable it. The
> exact
> > quote was that doing so is a  "very very bad idea." It is thier opinion
> that
> > it will be of no use, that the vandals will just create sleeper accounts
> and
> > evade the blocks. I don't agree, but I'm not a developer either; I defer
> to
> > thier expertise in the matter.
> ...
> > Essjay
>
> Is that really their reason?  That is *remarkably stupid* of them. I
> had thought there was a real reason; such lame excuses disgust me.
>
> The whole idea of blocking, reverting and rollbacking and such like is
> to change the balance between the ease of vandalising and the ease of
> fixing vandalism in the favor of the latter.
> Likewise, the whole idea of blocking is to raise the costs of an
> attack on pages to the point where the vandal engages in fewer or none
> (at which point the fixing-vandalism comes into play).  Ex. it is hard
> to vandalise a conventional website, and so it isn't done often, but
> it is easy to vandalise a wiki, so it is done often.
> Enabling that feature would raise the cost of vandalism from those
> IPs- even if they could still get around it (note that *all* blocks
> can be circumvented; it is just too troublesome for most vandals) by
> making sleeper accounts, that requires quite a bit of effort and
> planning, and waiting- all factors that considerably raise the cost of
> vandalism from those IPs, especially since the sleeper accounts would
> be indef blocked on surfacing, requiring the vandal to get even more
> sleeper accounts, costing ever more effort.
> It would be very useful.
>
> ~maru
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

--
Essjay
-----
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Essjay
Wikipedia:The Free Encyclopedia
http://www.wikipedia.org/