Sun 13th November 2011, 4:26pm
QUOTE(Text @ Sat 12th November 2011, 9:21pm)
The situation can be anywhere from 1 IP = 1 PC = 1 User, to X IP = Y PC = Z Users.
Generally, in a library, it's 1 IP = X PC = Z Users, or maybe X IP = X PC = Z Users.
As long as there are Z Users, the whole system gets blocked. There is no filter which can tell which user of the Z pack is vandalizing. The only method is notifying the owner of the library, who then identifies the vandalizer, and then kicks him/her out.
This stuff has happened many times. Check Template:Checkuserblock-Synetrix and Template:Checkuserblock-Alto.
"You must use a stable email address issued to you by your ISP, school, employer or similar organization so that we may verify that you are a legitimate user. Free email accounts (like Yahoo! mail, Google mail, or AOL) are easily obtained and abused and requests from such addresses will not be honored."
What would the motivation to edit be, if the above would have to be respected?
Right. If you are poor, you have only free email and free access at a place like a library. The edits coming from such an IP are generally representative of the population of the poor (plus others, such as real vandals and other disruptive editors who have been blocked from using their regular paid access).
Looking at the cross-wiki edits of the IP that was blocked for a year, none of the non-Wikipedia edits were disruptive. I did not examine all the WP edits, but many were not disruptive. So many are being blocked because of the actions of a few. This is being made necessary, partly, because of the rejection of Pending Changes. A more efficient method of reviewing Recent Changes -- which is astonishingly inefficient, but the cost of it is spread out so that individual editors don't really feel the pain -- could make it possible to filter out the bad stuff, quickly. It usually takes more time for most to make even a vandalism edit than it takes for a skilled editor, using assisted editing tools, to scan it and reject it.
Further, in connection with the Self-Reversion proposals, I suggested years ago reversion by bot. That was intended to enforce topic bans, i.e., there would be a list of topic banned editors, with, for each, a list of articles -- or article categories -- that they are not permitted to edit. Each to maintain, enforces a ban, and then allows editors to make reasonable suggestions even if banned, without a block being necessary.
And that could be done with IPs, which would only be hard-blocked for edits that create serious problems.
This would work fine with library IP. The reversion notice would explain, and editors who want to rescue this stuff could review it at leisure. Basically, the bot would create a log, and respected users could check off each entry as reviewed.
Wikipedians rejected Pending Changes because .... none of those voting, who were accorded any respect, were IP editors. The "free content" goal is lip service, not the provision of real access to people without funds.
In working with image licensing issues, I found that the deprecation of "fair use" arguments (it's considered that fair use reasons must be strong) was based on "free content." It's a misappropriation of the term "free." A fair use rationale would apply to any site copying the content for non-profit purpose. "Free use" really refers to "free for profit-making re-users," because they may, indeed, need a stronger rationale.
"Free" sounds great, though. Yeah! It should be Free!
Case in point: Wikiversity users, students, as a class assignment, upload a photo of themselves. They don't want anyone and everyone to be able to republish their photo. They can't put it on Commons, because Commons content must be "freely" usable. Now, there is a rationale for allowing fair use of photos in such a situation, it's the development of community. But the WMF and our local EDP don't allow fair use in user space. Which is crazy. That's not the content that would normally be re-used, it's quite reasonable to allow extensive fair use in user space. That would allow users to develop work without having the license police looking over their shoulders. So I started a Wikiversity:Assembly topic to examine the issue. The Assembly will be slow, but it's intended to be careful and thorough, and to develop reports on topics, to advise the community (and others).
However, the moves from meta to establish and enforce global bans, I see as a major storm cloud gathering on the horizon. Without any rational justification, it is becoming possible for Wikipedians, massing at meta, to arrange the declaration of a global ban, to be enforced at all wikis. Oh, reasons will be given. But there is no end to the possible invented reasons, and people who dominate and control others always have reasons.
While this is starting with Poetlister as poster boy, it can and will be applied to other "undesirables." It's more than a toe in the door, it's a whole jackboot.