Last modified: 2006-02-22 22:55:41 UTC

Wikimedia Bugzilla is closed!

Wikimedia has migrated from Bugzilla to Phabricator. Bug reports should be created and updated in Wikimedia Phabricator instead. Please create an account in Phabricator and add your Bugzilla email address to it.
Wikimedia Bugzilla is read-only. If you try to edit or create any bug report in Bugzilla you will be shown an intentional error message.
In order to access the Phabricator task corresponding to a Bugzilla report, just remove "static-" from its URL.
You could still run searches in Bugzilla or access your list of votes but bug reports will obviously not be up-to-date in Bugzilla.
Bug 4749 - Block expiration problem, block "accountability" problem
Block expiration problem, block "accountability" problem
Status: RESOLVED INVALID
Product: MediaWiki
Classification: Unclassified
General/Unknown (Other open bugs)
1.6.x
All All
: High critical (vote)
: ---
Assigned To: Nobody - You can work on this!
:
Depends on:
Blocks: 4618
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2006-01-25 18:37 UTC by Peter Gervai (grin)
Modified: 2006-02-22 22:55 UTC (History)
0 users

See Also:
Web browser: ---
Mobile Platform: ---
Assignee Huggle Beta Tester: ---


Attachments

Description Peter Gervai (grin) 2006-01-25 18:37:53 UTC
hu.wikipedia block log: "2006. január 24., 15:00 Grin "User:195.56.80.234"
blokkolva 3 nap lejárattal (User:IGe zoknibab)" (= ip blocked with 3 days
expiration)
The block now (25th january) is not in the blocklist, and I see no reason for
that. No unblock sign in the block log (and it is not probable that anyone
unblocked it anyway). This is a major problem, and should not happen.

Other problem is that blocklog is pretty inaccurate. It should log **EVERY**
block creation and every block removal either by sysops, stewards, god,
spambots, and internal mediawiki events. Right now there are "misterious" blocks
appearing (done by stewards, devels, spambot, ...) without a trace and usually
disappear just that way. This is bad, and log should list every change.
(Naturally this problem closely relates to the problem above, since we just
cannot follow not what happens and by whom.)
Comment 1 Peter Gervai (grin) 2006-01-25 18:44:32 UTC
The block was _probably_ expired after 24h [guessing from the activity of the
vandal]. Reason unknown.
Comment 2 Rob Church 2006-01-25 18:53:15 UTC
(In reply to comment #0)
> Right now there are "misterious" blocks appearing (done by stewards, devels,
spambot, ...) without a trace and usually> disappear just that way.

* Stewards can't set a block without first sysopping themselves on the target
wiki, and then performing the block as normal.
* The developers don't dish out blocks that often, and when it does happen, I
believe it's preferred to do it through the interface to avoid making mistakes.
* A spam bot doesn't have sufficient permissions to set a block.

I think the text above was, thus, an exaggeration.
Comment 3 Peter Gervai (grin) 2006-01-25 20:15:57 UTC
Dear Rob, the list was an example (and a guess!), please do not take it as an
offense or a blame, as it was not indended as such. WHATEVER the source of the
mysterious blocks (which were done by persons as well as the system [whatever
the "system" may be], but I cannot tell who or what since they are not logged
anywhere, they just "appear" in the blockiplist and "disappear" afterwards) they
are hidden from the blocking log, their setting as well as their removal.

Apart from that the problem of this bugreport was a very specific one, namely a
block which was disappeared with no reason. 
Comment 4 Peter Gervai (grin) 2006-01-27 12:13:56 UTC
It seems autoblocks remove valid blocks, then expire after 24h, thus removing
even an infinite block. Since this render longer-than-24h blocks useless,
raising prio. PLEASE CHECK, somebody. THanks.
Comment 5 Rob Church 2006-01-27 14:21:19 UTC
(In reply to comment #4)
> It seems autoblocks remove valid blocks, then expire after 24h, thus removing
> even an infinite block. Since this render longer-than-24h blocks useless,
> raising prio. PLEASE CHECK, somebody. THanks.

Let's have some proof of that, please?
Comment 6 Peter Gervai (grin) 2006-02-05 21:26:33 UTC
(In reply to comment #5)

> Let's have some proof of that, please?

Please kindly point out which information do you need apart from the
informations in the description [initial comment], which intended to include all
known informations related to this problem? Please try not to request
informations which I do not possess: I do not have root access to wikimedia
servers. 
Comment 7 Rob Church 2006-02-05 21:29:23 UTC
(In reply to comment #6)

You make the unsubstantiated claim that autoblocks are removing valid blocks,
which isn't coded for; then expire removing that block. The auto expiration is
possible; the removal of the first block shouldn't be. We need to see examples
of this happening; full test cases, e.g. "on XXwiki, user Joe blocked user Fred
for 36 hours, and another user was autoblocked as a result; this overrode the
block on Fred causing it to expire" etc.

Without examples, and evidence, we *cannot* be expected to process this bug report.

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.


Navigation
Links