{"action":"created","issue":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/enwikipedia-acc/waca/issues/178","labels_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/enwikipedia-acc/waca/issues/178/labels{/name}","comments_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/enwikipedia-acc/waca/issues/178/comments","events_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/enwikipedia-acc/waca/issues/178/events","html_url":"https://github.com/enwikipedia-acc/waca/issues/178","id":54160824,"number":178,"title":"In built feature to mark blocked IPs/ranges as \"ACC ignore\"","user":{"login":"Callanecc","id":4569718,"avatar_url":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/4569718?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/Callanecc","html_url":"https://github.com/Callanecc","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/Callanecc/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/Callanecc/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/Callanecc/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/Callanecc/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/Callanecc/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/Callanecc/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/Callanecc/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/Callanecc/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/Callanecc/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"labels":[{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/enwikipedia-acc/waca/labels/feature","name":"feature","color":"02e10c"}],"state":"open","locked":false,"assignee":null,"milestone":null,"comments":2,"created_at":"2015-01-13T07:57:30Z","updated_at":"2015-01-15T12:53:39Z","closed_at":null,"body":"This isn't urgent or really important, but I think it would be useful to have a feature where CUs can mark IPs/ranges which are blocked as 'ACC ignore' within the tool for a few reasons:\r\n1. It doesn't clog up the block log with information that most people won't understand\r\n2. It doesn't mean changing blocks (and hence confusion as to who the blocking admin is)\r\n3. One of the things I consider is whether the intended block target has the knowledge to check the block log and so request an account because they know it will be created for them.\r\n\r\nThe feature wouldn't need to detect if IPs/ranges were still blocked, it could be set similar to how ban management works, we set \"ACC ignore\" for x period of time or copy and paste in the block expiry. Then a message appears on the request page somewhere to note the ACC ignore.\r\n\r\nCallanecc"},"comment":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/enwikipedia-acc/waca/issues/comments/70081401","html_url":"https://github.com/enwikipedia-acc/waca/issues/178#issuecomment-70081401","issue_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/enwikipedia-acc/waca/issues/178","id":70081401,"user":{"login":"FastLizard4","id":623117,"avatar_url":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/623117?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/FastLizard4","html_url":"https://github.com/FastLizard4","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/FastLizard4/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/FastLizard4/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/FastLizard4/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/FastLizard4/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/FastLizard4/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/FastLizard4/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/FastLizard4/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/FastLizard4/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/FastLizard4/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"created_at":"2015-01-15T12:53:38Z","updated_at":"2015-01-15T12:53:38Z","body":"I am inclined to oppose/WONTFIX this.  Making this tracked on ACC instead of Wikipedia means that other admins/CUs who don't use ACC can't mark blocks as ACC ignore (should they know and/or desire to).\r\n\r\nI also think implementing this would be a lot of effort for what I personally consider a marginal/superficial benefit, as well as assuming more PRIVPOL liability than we need.\r\n\r\nSent from my iPhone\r\n\r\n> On Jan 14, 2015, at 17:18, DeltaQuad <notifications@github.com> wrote:\r\n> \r\n> This would be a major feature (in terms of code to write) request.\r\n> \r\n> If we do go ahead with it, I would prefer to see a bigger plan before someone puts the work into it as not only are there privacy implications potentially from this, but it will be required to have a log of it's own, and track if the block is currently active.\r\n> \r\n> —\r\n> Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.\r\n> "}}