Forum:Annule blocking ip address
Some ip adresses are blocked because of the abuse filter "new user's link to external side". Do you know how to annule this? lg
- I can technically unblock the IPs but they were blocked because the first action out of them was a link to an external site. This usually indicates a spambot of some sort.—cyberpower ChatOnline 00:12, 17 February 2015 (GMT)
- But it's not forbidden in general to link an external side? Can you unblock the ip 80.108.227.141 and the user S.anne? These are serious members of the kukuruz wiki. Or is it possible for me to unblock ip addresses? Thanks!
- On kukuruzwiki? Only a local administrator there or a global administrator here, like me, can unblock them. Did you want them unblocked on kukuruzwiki?—cyberpower ChatOnline 17:17, 17 February 2015 (GMT)
- On a side note, I don't see how user S.anne is a serious member when they don't have a single contribution logged on that wiki, can you perhaps enlighten me here? I am however inclined to unblock the IP, per AGF.—cyberpower ChatOnline 17:30, 17 February 2015 (GMT)
- I am the creator of kukuruzwiki. So am i automaticly a local administrator of it? If not, what can i do become a local administrator and how can i change the blocked list?
As an IP you are unknown to me. Would you care to login?If you are the founder you should have the power to do it yourself, unless you relinquished your rights.—cyberpower ChatOnline 17:54, 17 February 2015 (GMT)- Signing your name with ~~~~ helps me to identify you when I'm communicating. Makes communicating much easier for everyone.—cyberpower ChatLimited Access 18:04, 17 February 2015 (GMT)
- I am the creator of kukuruzwiki. So am i automaticly a local administrator of it? If not, what can i do become a local administrator and how can i change the blocked list?
The filter is a pain, and it should be done away with entirely. As a new user, I couldn't even submit links to other orain.org webpages. This makes things really difficult for new users with complaints. Plus, Orain's filters can't be accessed by non-sysops. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 17:57, 17 February 2015 (GMT)
- It looks to me you just did. The filter is designed to prevent user's first edits from being external links as they are likely spam. The block feature has been disabled however to prevent unintended blocks. —cyberpower ChatLimited Access 18:04, 17 February 2015 (GMT)
- I "just did" because I'm not a new user anymore. The same can't be said by others with complaints. What happened to "everyone is innocent until proven guilty"? There shouldn't be filters built on the idea that every new users whose initial edits include external links must be a spambot. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 18:12, 17 February 2015 (GMT)
- No, but likely, given recent events here, were Stewards had to do some major cleanup after we got attacked with spambots multiple times. This filter spawned as a result of that attack, and while I have the power to shut it off, and while I do feel your sympathies, I won't switch it off without input from the stewards.—cyberpower ChatLimited Access 18:15, 17 February 2015 (GMT)
- "Attack"? You're not at war with spambots, and since this isn't a war, the collateral damage created by the filter shouldn't be tolerated. In addition, trying to weed out spambots will result in good users being harmed as well. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 18:26, 17 February 2015 (GMT)
- War? Who said war? It doesn't take a war to be attacked. When you have 20 accounts simultaneously get created and start going on a spam rampage globally, it was extremely harder to clean up than to unblock collateral damage. And without discussion, this abuse filter will remain on.—cyberpower ChatLimited Access 18:32, 17 February 2015 (GMT)
- I have experience with spambots, and Encyclopedia Dramatica and I don't need the Abuse Filter to eliminate spam. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 18:40, 17 February 2015 (GMT)
- That is one wiki. Imagine cleaning up a mess across hundreds. In any event if you want it off, start a discussion on meta and get consensus.—cyberpower ChatLimited Access 18:51, 17 February 2015 (GMT)
- I'm not a stranger to wiki farms. Wikia, ShoutWiki, and the few now-discontinued wiki farms I've been to don't possess filters that deters new users from posting any external links. This is Meta, this is a discussion, and two users are sharing their experiences with the abuse filter and asking for support. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 19:16, 17 February 2015 (GMT)
- If I'm not mistaken the filter is designed to prevent the FIRST edit from containing any external links. All other edits should be fine. I see no issue. If something else is happening as a result of this filter, then it is malfunctioning.—cyberpower ChatOffline 19:22, 17 February 2015 (GMT)
- I'm not a stranger to wiki farms. Wikia, ShoutWiki, and the few now-discontinued wiki farms I've been to don't possess filters that deters new users from posting any external links. This is Meta, this is a discussion, and two users are sharing their experiences with the abuse filter and asking for support. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 19:16, 17 February 2015 (GMT)
- That is one wiki. Imagine cleaning up a mess across hundreds. In any event if you want it off, start a discussion on meta and get consensus.—cyberpower ChatLimited Access 18:51, 17 February 2015 (GMT)
- I have experience with spambots, and Encyclopedia Dramatica and I don't need the Abuse Filter to eliminate spam. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 18:40, 17 February 2015 (GMT)
- War? Who said war? It doesn't take a war to be attacked. When you have 20 accounts simultaneously get created and start going on a spam rampage globally, it was extremely harder to clean up than to unblock collateral damage. And without discussion, this abuse filter will remain on.—cyberpower ChatLimited Access 18:32, 17 February 2015 (GMT)
- "Attack"? You're not at war with spambots, and since this isn't a war, the collateral damage created by the filter shouldn't be tolerated. In addition, trying to weed out spambots will result in good users being harmed as well. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 18:26, 17 February 2015 (GMT)
- No, but likely, given recent events here, were Stewards had to do some major cleanup after we got attacked with spambots multiple times. This filter spawned as a result of that attack, and while I have the power to shut it off, and while I do feel your sympathies, I won't switch it off without input from the stewards.—cyberpower ChatLimited Access 18:15, 17 February 2015 (GMT)
- I "just did" because I'm not a new user anymore. The same can't be said by others with complaints. What happened to "everyone is innocent until proven guilty"? There shouldn't be filters built on the idea that every new users whose initial edits include external links must be a spambot. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 18:12, 17 February 2015 (GMT)
┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Yet when I attempted to submit a link within my first edit, I didn't receive any warnings, notices, or any sort of visible sign whatsoever that there was a filter in place. It just kept showing me more CAPTCHA's to fill out. I didn't realize that the Abuse Filter was the cause of the problem until I saw this page. A message that says something along the lines of "In order to deter spam, the first edit you submit may not include links. If you wish to submit links, please do so with your second edit," in big, bold letters would be nice, although I would prefer that the filter be to removed entirely. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 19:34, 17 February 2015 (GMT)
- I'm not completely familiar with abuse filters, but I don't see it having the ability to generate captchas. The filter is only set to block the edit in question.—cyberpower ChatOffline 20:22, 17 February 2015 (GMT)
- The CAPTCHA's aren't a part of the Abuse Filter. All users without the "skipcaptcha" right must pass a CAPTCHA test in order to submit revisions with links in them. I'm just saying that I didn't see any indication that a filter was in place, so a message of some sort about the filter would be helpful; otherwise, new users will assume that they somehow failed the CAPTCHA and will try passing the CAPTCHA over and over and over again. In addition, can the "skipcaptcha" right please be gained to all users within the "autoconfirmed" group? Wikipedia grants the "skipcaptcha" right to all "autoconfirmed" users, yet Orain only grants it to sysops, bots, and "emailconfirmed" users. Users who have been here a while yet don't wish to provide an Email address shouldn't be forced to pass a CAPTCHA test every time they wish to submit an external link. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 20:57, 17 February 2015 (GMT)