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)
 * This is done by the abuse filter in order to detect the spam. Tau Ceti (talk) 00:22, 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)

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 <sup style="color:\#FF8C00;font-family:arnprior">Chat<sub style="margin-left:-4.4ex;color:\#FF8C00;font-family:arnprior">Limited 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 <sup style="color:red;font-family:arnprior">Chat<sub style="margin-left:-4.4ex;color:red;font-family:arnprior">Offline 19:22, 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 <sup style="color:red;font-family:arnprior">Chat<sub style="margin-left:-4.4ex;color:red;font-family:arnprior">Offline 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)

https://right.orain.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=Cyberpower678 – Cyberpower678, you don't know how to combat spam. You shoot shoot first and ask questions later. This "guilty until proven innocent" method of combating spam should be done away with. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:18, 23 February 2015 (GMT)
 * Alright, let's not be rude to each other here. While I do not have the authority to officially speak for Orain and put an end to this (anymore), I am going to offer my thoughts. This filter that you are complaining about is necessary. Without it, we have had hundreds, if not thousands, of spam pages created by IPs. This clogs up the RecentChanges, makes sysops do extra work to delete the spam pages, and causes Orain to look as if it is not well-maintained. To be honest, I don't see this filter (Filter 5) being deleted in the near future, especially since it has stopped over 6000 spam edits. It literally only stops you from including an external link in your first edit. To be honest, I see this being a problem for a very small number of constructive editors. I think adding a warning when the filter is triggered would be useful, just letting the user know their edit is blocked because it contains a link to an external site within their first edit. Most spambots (if not all of them) would never even process the warning and make sense out of it and know how to evade the filter. The warning would only help constructive members of the community. Maybe this is something we need to take look at. Long story short, the filter probably isn't going anywhere. The good that it does way outweighs the very few small inconveniences it causes. -- Joe G. (Talk) 16:07, 23 February 2015 (GMT)
 * Rudeness seems to be the most effective means to get Orain staff in gear. I suggested a message a week ago, yet the filter hadn't been touched until I gained your attention today via rudeness. Until Orain shows me that rudeness isn't required to gain a response, rudeness will continue to be utilized. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 17:28, 23 February 2015 (GMT)
 * I'm sorry you feel that way. Unfortunately, that's not how the world works. I'm not sure if you're young or just immature, but you don't get to be rude to people and expect them to do what you want. The Orain staff are spread very thin right now, and this isn't exactly the biggest of their concerns. I used to be a staff member with Orain and I know how much work they put into this farm. You have absolutely no idea. They are the hardest working people I know. I have the technical ability to add a warning to the filter; however, I will not be adding the warning until I consult with a few others to get their opinion on it. Maybe someone else will come along and just decide to do it. Changing an effective, working means of controlling spam is not at the forefront of the Orain Staff's minds - especially for something so trivial. They have much bigger, more important things to worry about including maintaining the cluster of servers we run, running investigations as necessary, and handling global maintenance. I don't proclaim to know their current "plate" per se, but I'm sure they are handling quite a bit right now. If they think this is a big issue, and worth making a change for, they will do it when they have the time. I suggest you get your act together and stop being an immature member of this community. I don't know who you are (and frankly, I don't care), but you need to show some respect. A piece of life advice for you, from me personally: if you respect people, they will be more willing to do things for you. I'm probably going to get in trouble for saying this and you'll accuse me of "being rude" to you, but I'm simply letting you know that you are out of line. I appreciate your suggestion and understand your frustration, but your above comment is uncalled for. If you continue to be rude, I'm pretty sure it's not going to advance this issue and you likely will end up getting yourself into trouble. Thanks! -- Joe G. (Talk) 18:45, 23 February 2015 (GMT)
 * Well said Joe.— cyberpower <sup style="color:olive;font-family:arnprior">Chat<sub style="margin-left:-4.4ex;color:olive;font-family:arnprior">Online 18:49, 23 February 2015 (GMT)
 * I also would like to point out that it appears that you really don't have a leg to stand on, considering your edits are all to meta (with one exception) see the global account manager and your meta edits are to talk pages and this discussion. You have yet to contribute in a constructive manner to this project, as far as I can tell; to me, it appears that you're here to stir up trouble. Please note, these are just my observations and are solely my personal views/opinions. They do not represent any official interpretation of the situation. -- Joe G. (Talk) 18:52, 23 February 2015 (GMT)
 * (edit conflict) Thank you Cyberpower. Appreciate your support of my reply and assessment of the situation/explanation. -- Joe G. (Talk) 18:52, 23 February 2015 (GMT)
 * Experience tells me that stirring up trouble is the best way to generate change. I'm not here to create wikis, but I am here to get Orain into shape. Frankly, what new users experience with their first edit should be one of Orain's top priorities. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 20:15, 23 February 2015 (GMT)

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on why you're here. The Orain staff has years and years of experience of managing wiki farms. I know many of them personally from long, long ago. They definitely know what they are doing. While I'm sure they do appreciate help, it probably is only well-received if it is not in a rude manner. Unfortunately for you, it appears that your experience has led you to believe something that is false. The best way to bring about change is to have a civil discussion about something and allow it to reach an acceptable outcome. When you are rude, you lose respect and thus lose your credibility. If you don't have credibility, people aren't going to listen to you and then you aren't going to "bring about change". I'm not here to lecture, and this discussion has turned into being about you - which is not its point. I will discuss implementing the warning with the rest of the staff. In the future, please be respectful and do not act high and mighty - you're not. Let me make this clear, though: If you do stir up trouble on this project, and it becomes uncivil or an attack on users, I will not blink an eye before I block you. I don't have any issue with changes being proposed civilly and respectfully, but your attacks need to stop. Your comments toward Cyberpower were absolutely uncalled for. Don't do it again. Thank you, -- Joe G. (Talk) 00:57, 24 February 2015 (GMT)
 * This is getting really troublesome, I've to admit. Tau Ceti (talk) 22:30, 24 February 2015 (GMT)