4,604
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 623:
Line 623: + +
Conservapedia:Desk/Abuse (view source)
Revision as of 03:46, December 4, 2008
, 03:46, December 4, 2008→Range Blocks: short reply
I authorized every single block that TK made. We discovered some sockholes and decided to close them up as we found several campaigns of vandalism. I believe that we used 6 month and 1 year blocks due to the fluctuation of proxies, therefore we aren't locking up IPs forever. I believe that the holes should be plugged up, and we should see if the IPBlock Exempt flag is available. If anyone has a cleaner range block, please share it. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geoff Plourde]]<sup>[[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Complain!]]</sup> 21:55, 2 December 2008 (EST)
I authorized every single block that TK made. We discovered some sockholes and decided to close them up as we found several campaigns of vandalism. I believe that we used 6 month and 1 year blocks due to the fluctuation of proxies, therefore we aren't locking up IPs forever. I believe that the holes should be plugged up, and we should see if the IPBlock Exempt flag is available. If anyone has a cleaner range block, please share it. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geoff Plourde]]<sup>[[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Complain!]]</sup> 21:55, 2 December 2008 (EST)
::In the future, I think that the range blocks should be performed by you, Geo (an actual administrator). The thought that I actually had to run checkuser over the IP's blocked and finding a seemingly legitimate contributor worries me. Block ranges need to be sharply defined. The larger the range, the shorter the block. I'd prefer to see a /24 range (256 IP's) for infinite duration rather than a /16 range for 1 year. I don't think we will worry Andy with the ipblock-exempt right as the problem can be prevented by using better range blocking methods. [[User:Jallen|Jallen]] 22:46, 3 December 2008 (EST)