User talk:WereSpielChequers/IP and OS blocks

Interesting proposal. Since this looks like it would involve use of the CU tools, I'm going to drop a note to the functionaries-l mailing list asking CUs to take a look. Hopefully a few will have comments to help you along. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 03:01, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It shouldn't use the tools other than to develop and test it, but you make a good point - CUs should be in a much better position than me to guesstimate how much collateral damage is taking place.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers 17:58, 23 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd suggest that one of the simpler steps to be taken to reduce the amount of unnecessary blocking would be to change the "default" blocking parameters so that autoblocks are not automatic. Right now, administrators have to consciously de-select autoblocking.  It's only useful if the user is known to have multiple existing socks; blocking account creation will reduce the likelihood of new ones.  As to open proxies, I believe that's a widely over-used form of IP/range blocking, because many, many of the blocks to "open proxies" don't actually involve open proxies. Risker (talk) 04:37, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * If some of the blocks are incorrect then I'm not sure how best to address that, unless there are lists available of open proxies and we could unblock IP addresses that are not on such lists. Defaulting blocks as hard rather than soft is an interesting idea, personally I have no idea what proportion of hard blocks successfully prevent someone just starting a new vandalism account. At present I only use Soft Blocks for promotional usernames.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers 21:42, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest you also run this past the WMF - I myself have a serious concern about the retention of checkuser data beyond the prescribed period except where there is proven serial vandalism (or spam). Checkusers would have to constantly add to and retain all of this data on the checkuser-wiki, which may be excessively onerous: as it is, we only include information that is related to a limited group of recurrent problem IPs or editors. I do agree there are concerns about "open proxies", a term that is sometimes misused to include anonymizers and certain commercial services.  Anonymouse, for example, isn't an open proxy, but it is often blocked by us because of editorial abuse.  Risker (talk) 22:27, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * well I suppose we could limit this in terms of time, and obviously the process would need to be automated, so we don't have checkusers having to update some other wiki for every such block. What would you think of a five year cap on the IP data part of such indefinite blocks?  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers 23:36, 24 February 2013 (UTC)