The offending crontab entries have been disabled.

Sorry - missed your email, and with the holidays this has slipped my mind. The offending crontab entry has been commented out.

It's very spammy, and disruptive.

This is due to two cron jobs. I'm not somewhere right now that I can update the simple jsub command to the more complicated new command. I will try to get to this in the next week.

This is due to a single cron job. I'm not somewhere right now that I can update the simple jsub command to the more complicated new command. I will try to get to this in the next week.

Tool has been shut down.

Tool has been shut down.

Why send a task for every last tool, instead of sending one task per user? I'm up to 8 emails already because of this.

Why send a task for every last tool, instead of sending one task per user? I'm up to 8 emails already because of this.

Why send a task for every last tool, instead of sending one task per user? I'm up to 8 emails already because of this.

Why send a task for every last tool, instead of sending one task per user? I'm up to 8 emails already because of this.

InT282624#7080484,@GeneralNotabilitywrote:

@jrbsthe problem, as I see it, is that this is being presented as afait accompli- the decision has been made, but if you want to complain, you may submit your concerns, to partially quote Douglas Adams, "in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard.'" (in all seriousness - I think we all know that there exist no "questions or concerns" someone could raise that would actually change the outcome here). There have been discussions with the steward team, yes but not with the people who previously granted the right. It's too late now, but next time this sort of thing happens, I suggest at least talking to the impacted partiesbeforethe change is submitted for merge rather than blindsiding them such that they find out at the same time as everyone else.

Non-ideal at best. This should report the user's address.

I appreciate +sub, but I don't think that this is an appropriate place to discuss what's going on with my tools. Please feel free to reach out to me on IRC if you'd like to talk.

Just FYI, a cursory glance at thedocumentationindicates that the free plan does not include the "connection type", and only really exposes data available via whois. Real, usable data begins with the $249/mo "standard" plan.

@Niharika,I've emailed you directly with the costs and limits - and explained why in the email.

InT248525#6071633,@dbarrattwrote:

InT248525#6069636,@Niharikawrote:

I think most people accessing this information know that it is never 100% accurate. We heard that several times when we pitched these tools. The way they currently deal with this is either by having a single website they trust that they go to or checking multiple websites. One commonly used tool isipcheck on ToolForgewhich coalesces this information from several websites.

Ironically I can't access the tool with my staff account, but I was able to use my personal account. We may need to update the access of the tool to allow(WMF)accounts.

InT248525#6073152,@aezellwrote:

Thanks for putting this together. Lots of stuff to consider.

It's looking more and more like we'll be collating data from a few different sources. A question I have about that is whether we want to store the collated data somewhere so that we don't always have to rebuild it. How would that work with caching or when the data needs to change? Is it even a valid concern?

I just worry that hitting 4 APIs and pulling the data together for hundreds of IPs in an investigation could get very expensive.

InT248525#6059199,@Niharikawrote:

Thanks@SQL.This is helpful information.

Whether the IP address is known to be a VPN or Tor node

Looks good to me, and StalkToy is back too. Thanks all!

I've resolved this for my tool by not using the meta db anymore. We haven't needed the information I was pulling from that db for some time now in any case.

Self-unblocks seem to work, and Special:Unblock will load, but you get a permission error when attempting to unblock another user.

@Niharika- I noticed in the tech news today, that we should contact you if our wiki should be delayed for deployment. As we're still discussing enabling this feature (RFC is linked above), I think it would be best to hold off on deploying to enwiki.

Related discussion:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Range_block_not_working%3F

InT236955#5631722,@EditingOedipawrote:

The student whose screenshots I used, Meledit2089 tried turning her VPN off and filed an unblock appeal, but as of Friday, her account was still blocked.

Thank you again for your help on this.

Hm. It's plausible, albeit strange that the college routes it's outbound traffic via 24SHELLS for some reason. If it gets in the way of the edit-a-thon, and there's no way around it, I'm fine with dropping the block for a week or two - either by me, or any other admin.

Resolved, thank you for your help.

Done, thank you.

I'm not sure if it helps, but I made an edit referencing this ticket while logged in:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SQL&type=revision&diff=904132284&oldid=904037182&diffmode=source

Done.

I've had to restart the webservice on a couple of my tools recently - possibly needs done here too?

This works when manually specifying the title via URL, e.g.:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki?title=User:SQL/Testing.Bug&action=raw

Erm, meant to resolve.

I've got this, seehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SQL#Beta_cluster_bot

InT150826#4784223,@Ankit-Maitywrote:

InT150826#4778848,@Adotcharwrote:

InT150826#4778796,@Bawolffwrote:

There's discussion on enwiki about also having a rate limit on blocking users. Seems like a reasonable enough idea, but we'd want it high, as we really only want it in cases of truly malicious users.

Please, please, please do not do this globally without a meta RfC or some form of other discussion. (and should require every wiki’s community to be notified, or for it to be handled on a wiki-by-wiki basis)

I am strongly opposed to this, and I’m sure many others are as well who are not watching this ticket.

What is the downside? Why would any admin need to block more than let's say 5-10 admins in one single sitting.

The latest blocked editor has updated us -https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:188.118.96.39&type=revision&diff=865600821&oldid=865112519&diffmode=source.It sounds like it was a cookie block.

For it to be XFF, wouldn't the proxy (The IP in the range that shows up as being blocked) need to be in trusted-hosts (https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/plugins/gitiles/mediawiki/extensions/TrustedXFF/+/refs/heads/master/trusted-hosts.txt) / trusted-xff (https://noc.wikimedia.org/conf/highlight.php?file=trusted-xff.php/ decoded:https://tools.wmflabs.org/aivanalysis/trusted-xff.txt)?

Worked like a charm, thank you!

Is there any further information needed on my end for this request? (I hope this isn't a bother!)

Relevant details: