DDO wiki talk:Blocking policy

Blocking policy discussion

Figured I would open the discussion here. The policy page is admin protected and this discussion will be semi-protected. Please feel free to voice your opinions here and let's get a universal agreement and policy of how to deal with these things... As I am sure many of you are aware, I'm often available on our IRC chat channel, and any discussion on a topic I am aware of is transcribed on to the appropriate talk page here as well. ShoeMaker (Contributions • Message) 12:01, August 4, 2012 (EDT)

No problem with Unacceptable Username and their Infinite ban

• Legit Registered users
  • First instance - Warning
  • Second instance - One week
  • Third instance - Two months
  • Repeated - Infinite
• Spam/Vandalism Registered users
  • First instance - Infinite
  • Second instance - n/a
  • Third instance - n/a
  • Repeated - n/a

Do to the dynamic nature of IP addresss and some ISPs use a shared IP system, long term blocks are a bad idea. Blocks can be bypasss by a determine spamer leaving legimite users with access problems.

• IP address
  • First instance - Warning (hahaha skip this one)
  • Second instance - 24 hours - one week
  • Third instance - Two weeks - 1 months
  • Repeated - Three months

And as always: Final discretion is left to the blocking administrator on a case-by-case basis. Bladedge (Contributions • Message) 15:26, August 4, 2012 (EDT)

(Kinda tired, so if this seems disjointed, I apologize in advance.)

I've been heavy handed when it comes to spammers. When checking a few of the anon spammer IPs, I discovered they were typically from overseas datacenters that have been setup as proxies or scripted remote workstations designed solely to execute PHP script on websites. These IPs are unlikely to end up in a DHCP pool for the end users. This is not always the case, but mostly.

Either way, the bot-spammers, I vote Infinite bans, IP and/or User, on first instance. The vandalism must be squelched promptly, and we can go back and change the block if we discover we banned an incorrect address.

Heck, If I found a spammer was using a datacenter's DHCP pool, I'd block the whole IP superblock. We had to do it once before (temporarily, of course).

Suspected non-bot vandalism/spamming, block including IP: 1-3 Months, depending on chances of repetition (hacked accounts, personal vendettas, zealotry, etc.). If the user's account has been compromised, include a request to the user to update their password and secure their account or create a new account - I did see we can merge accounts at Special:UserMerge.

• Reference (perhaps something similar we can implement?): http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Check_Spambots "Tauro" (Contributions • Message) 03:01, August 30, 2012 (EDT)

User name length limit?

was wondering how much of the user name length wiki is allowing atm, upon account registration. user names such as SomanabolicMuscleMaximizerReview9646 (Contribs • Message • Email) is clearly a spam bot, and by limiting it we can prevent some of such accounts to be created = less effort for us to ban spam bots.

• Special:ActiveUsers - longest active user name we have on the list is Bugbear_Librarian (Contribs • Message • Email), which is 18 characters
• Special:BlockList
• how much is allowed on turbine boards? our limit gotta be at least as much allowing as theirs ofc.

thoughts? yoko5000 (Contributions • Message) 09:25, August 17, 2012 (EDT)

I can ask Xevo (Contribs • Message • Email) on the IRC chat channel next time he is not idle... He is the only one that knows what it is currently set at on the wiki. As far as the forums go, I think their user name length is set to like 16 or 20 max, but I can't be sure of that. ShoeMaker (Contributions • Message) 09:47, August 17, 2012 (EDT)

For the DDO Forum: "Forum Username must be between 3 and 20 characters and must not contain special characters". Bladedge (Contributions • Message) 12:36, August 17, 2012 (EDT)

I did catch up with and discuss this on the IRC chat channel and there was nothing set for a limit so it was defaulted to 255. I believe Xevo (Contribs • Message • Email) set it to 20-25, but am not certain. I will confirm this and set up the proper mediawiki notice pages to inform people to pick a name no greater than the limit and give proper links for if they need any help. ShoeMaker (Contributions • Message) 08:44, August 30, 2012 (EDT)

Policy Review

In light of recent events, it has come to my attention that we're actually violating our own blocking policy with vandalism accounts. According to the page's last revision (from 2015), the block called for for a vandalism account is 1 to 6 months, yet we are blocking these accounts indefinitely. While I am not arguing that the blocks since given should be changed, the policy absolutely needs to be updated. In the meantime, I suggest that we actually follow the policy as it stands now regarding the blocks we hand out despite it not being as harsh on vandalism, because it's inherently unfair for our block policy to be so blatantly wrong compared to the actions we take. Habreno (Contribs • Message • Email) 15:59, April 28, 2017 (EDT)

• I'm not sure that is accurate. All of those spambots have been blocked under the Unacceptable Username portion of the policy, which calls for indef block. Although, I guess what is considered an "acceptable" or "unacceptable" username is currently undefined and up to the discretion of the blocking admin. That said, I'm not opposed at all to refining and defining what's what here. I'd love more feedback from others before I comment further. Habreno, do you have a specific proposal of what you think the definitions/terms should be that we can discuss and refine? ShoeMaker (Contribs • Message • Email) 16:13, April 28, 2017 (EDT)
• Now. As far as the actual suggestions go, here they are. Suggestion by Habreno. Text inside double parenthesis (()) is for informational purposes only and is not to be copied should this template be used for the policy. Text inside single parenthesis () *is* relevant to policy.

• Account Name and Vandalism Issues:
  • Unacceptable Username: Indefinite on account and talk page, allow for creation of 1 new account. If multiples from same source, follow current policy. ((As a side note, Username Policy also needs updating, but one thing at a time.))
  • Vandalism and Spam by an IP address: ((Abstain))
  • Vandalism and Spam by an account specifically created for this purpose: Indefinite on account and talk page.
  • Vandalism and Spam by an account that has made legitimate contributions: 3 days, 2 weeks, 2 months. If an account is problematic enough that we exceed three instances, issue a 4 month block in the interim and invoke a discussion among administrators and above about the account (the account being discussed may be involved in the discussion if the group of administrators wishes), with a minimum of three people coming to a final decision, then adjust the block as discussed. If no discussion is achieved or no decision is reached, do not adjust block.
    • Excessive violations may result in an indefinite block.
    • Vandalism and Spam by Legitimate Account is classified as a subset of Disruptive Editing.

• Other Issues:
  • Disruptive Editing: 3 days, 2 weeks, 1 month. Further instances within a two-year timespan are treated as vandalism by legitimate account and start at the fourth step (4 month block with administrator and higher discussion)
  • Edit Warring: 3 day block for all accounts involved. After block, 2 week "soft block" for all accounts involved on the warred topic(s). Violation of the soft block or second instance of edit warring on the same topic results in a 2 week block, with a 2 week "soft block" afterward on the topic. Violations afterward on the same topic result in a 1 month block and an indefinite soft block on the topic. Violations of an indefinite soft block are subject to a 2 month block minimum, increasing by 2 months with each violation.
    • Edit Warring on topics unrelated to other edit warring offenses received is treated separately.
    • Habitual edit warring by the same account is subject to Vandalism and Spam by Legitimate Account policy, beginning at third violation of that policy.
    • Edit Warring is classified as a subset of Disruptive Editing.
  • Other Issues: 12 hours to 1 week (minor), 3 days to 2 weeks (medium), 1 week to 1 month (severe) for first offenses. Second offenses within a two-year timespan: 1 week to 3 months. Third offenses within two-year timespan: 1 month to 1 year.
  • Compromised Accounts: Indefinite on account and talk page until it is clear that the account is back in its original owner's control. This block is purely for the safety of the wiki and account and is not a behavior issue and should not be treated as such.
  • Multiple Editors on One Account: ((Abstain))
    • For policies that track over the span of two years, new violations reset the two year duration. In order for tracking to reset, account must have two *clean* years with no violations under the relevant policy (e.g. an account with two disruptive edit issues that receives an Edit Warring violation would reset the duration on the two years for Disruptive Editing. If that same account instead received an Other Issues violation, the Disruptive Policy tracking duration would not be reset, though the account would get a fresh two-year tracking on Other Issues violations.)

• I feel these are clear and fair. Two different general subsets (Vandalism and Other) which clearly state what they cover and what the result of each is. Habreno (Contribs • Message • Email) 17:16, April 28, 2017 (EDT)