I posted the following reply in a current Moderators forum thread (that link won't work for non-moderators) and thought I should repost it here. It's just my opinion, others may disagree. It needs Admin input.
Right now the rules only talk about not posting harmful links. Contributors should not give instructions that can cause real harm, such as how to bypass the Mozilla Blocklist (if users insist, the question can be escalated to the Helpdesk). I think this should be added to Answering questions on the Support Forum under "Posting replies" (it could also be added to Mozilla Support rules and guidelines under a new "Posting answers" section)
Do not post answers that expose users to security vulnerabilities, such how to bypass the Mozilla Blocklist, even if the question specifically asks for that information. Refer such questions to the Helpdesk (see Escalation guidelines) or refer to a moderator by using the "Report Abuse" button.
Moderators should review these questions, edit out answers with potentially harmful information, and add a comment explaining why the advice may be harmful. This could also be added to Forum moderation guidelines under "Editing inappropriate content".
Users who cannot update Flash (or other plugins) for whatever reason (or who simply don't want to be bothered) should NOT be told how to bypass the blocklist. Plugin blocks are Click to Play and the plugin can still be activated without updating it. Users can even select the option to "Allow and Remember" on a site-by-site basis so that trusted sites will always activate the plugin. Refer users to the Why do I have to click to activate plugins? article.
<snip>
I posted the following reply in a current [/forums/forum-moderators/711069 Moderators forum thread] (that link won't work for non-moderators) and thought I should repost it here. It's just my opinion, others may disagree. It needs Admin input.
-----
Right now the rules only talk about not posting harmful links. Contributors should not give instructions that can cause real harm, such as how to bypass the Mozilla Blocklist (if users insist, the question can be escalated to the Helpdesk). I think this should be added to [[Answering questions on the Support Forum]] under "Posting replies" (it could also be added to [[Forum rules and guidelines]] under a new "Posting answers" section)
''Do not post answers that expose users to security vulnerabilities, such how to bypass the [[Add-ons that cause stability or security issues are put on a blocklist|Mozilla Blocklist]], even if the question specifically asks for that information. Refer such questions to the Helpdesk (see [[Escalation guidelines]]) or refer to a moderator by using the "Report Abuse" button.''
Moderators should review these questions, edit out answers with potentially harmful information, and add a comment explaining why the advice may be harmful. This could also be added to [[Forum moderation guidelines]] under "Editing inappropriate content".
Users who cannot update Flash (or other plugins) for whatever reason (or who simply don't want to be bothered) should NOT be told how to bypass the blocklist. Plugin blocks are Click to Play and the plugin can still be activated without updating it. Users can even select the option to "Allow and Remember" on a site-by-site basis so that trusted sites will always activate the plugin. Refer users to the [[Why do I have to click to activate plugins?]] article.
<snip>
Hmm, this is a good one. I incline to say it should be the same policy as the one for harmful links but we should listen to more opinions around that.
The question is do we want to give out this type of information when the user insists on it with a big red flashing WARNING above it? Or we simply shouldn't give out this info at all?
Hmm, this is a good one. I incline to say it should be the same policy as the one for harmful links but we should listen to more opinions around that.
The question is do we want to give out this type of information when the user insists on it with a big red flashing WARNING above it? Or we simply shouldn't give out this info at all?
In this case the genie is already out of the bottle. I think actively countering bad solutions is better than staying silent.
Clearly the initial advice should be not to do this (disable blocklist etc) it is dangerous to the computer and data, but there are likely always to be grey areas and exceptions.
I have the view that maybe Mods or Helpdesk should be asked to assist in such threads, if a such information has been posted, or needs to be posted. Of course Mods will respond faster than Helpdesk.
We could even write a KB article but I think that is overkill.
I worry that totally banning posting of such information may result in users following advice on some non reputable site, or maybe some video promoting a secret wonder cure.
By posting a warning we may even help users understand this is something not to do. Whereas by hiding information we risk driving users elsewhere for a dangerous solution.
There are other dangerous actions or omissions computer users may attempt. We can not protect the users from all risks. The best we can do is offer clear advice about Firefox (and other Mozilla products) and hope it is followed.
NOTE The information (disable blocklist) being discussed already exists in our support forum and elsewhere on the web.
In this case the genie is already out of the bottle. I think actively countering bad solutions is better than staying silent.
Clearly the initial advice should be not to do this (disable blocklist etc) it is dangerous to the computer and data, but there are likely always to be grey areas and exceptions.
I have the view that maybe Mods or Helpdesk should be asked to assist in such threads, if a such information has been posted, or needs to be posted. Of course Mods will respond faster than Helpdesk.
We could even write a KB article but I think that is overkill.
I worry that totally banning posting of such information may result in users following advice on some non reputable site, or maybe some video promoting a secret wonder cure.
By posting a warning we may even help users understand this is something not to do. Whereas by hiding information we risk driving users elsewhere for a dangerous solution.
There are other dangerous actions or omissions computer users may attempt. We can not protect the users from all risks. The best we can do is offer clear advice about Firefox (and other Mozilla products) and hope it is followed.
NOTE The information (disable blocklist) being discussed already exists in our support forum and elsewhere on the web.
I don't think this information should be handed out at all, it's on the internet if someone really wants to find it, but for uninformed users just browsing the forum (not the OP) this is a foot gun we shouldn't be allowing.
Unfortunately it's going to be hard to enforce but if we had a rule then we could start deleting the answer with this content at least.
I don't think this information should be handed out at all, it's on the internet if someone really wants to find it, but for uninformed users just browsing the forum (not the OP) this is a foot gun we shouldn't be allowing.
Unfortunately it's going to be hard to enforce but if we had a rule then we could start deleting the answer with this content at least.
Are we also then allowed to edit threads to warn of other bad advice.
Madalina
IIRC in previous discussions you were taking a hard line and saying mods should almost never not edit bad advice to add warnings or delete it.
I am thinking here for instance advice to downgrade Firefox when there are better alternatives, and solutions suggesting changing browser, again where there may be alternative solutions.
Remember current guidelines only allow the OP, not a moderator, to choose a solution. Mods may only mark solutions the op agrees works. (So in multi question threads - which we should not have anyhow - known and popular solutions can not be marked)
Looks like Alice's opinion is correct.
Are we also then allowed to edit threads to warn of other bad advice.
Madalina
IIRC in previous discussions you were taking a hard line and saying mods should almost never not edit bad advice to add warnings or delete it.
I am thinking here for instance advice to downgrade Firefox when there are better alternatives, and solutions suggesting changing browser, again where there may be alternative solutions.
Remember current guidelines only allow the OP, not a moderator, to choose a solution. Mods may only mark solutions the op agrees works. (So in multi question threads - which we should not have anyhow - known and popular solutions can not be marked)
Looks like Alice's opinion is correct.
Are we also then allowed to edit threads to warn of other bad advice.
This is still a discussion and no decision has been made yet. There is no right or wrong answer. We need to hear what people have to say and then decide the best course of action. I have also called for more participation in this thread in the community meeting today.
Also, I think it's worth to remind ourselves that we will never be able to have perfect guidelines or make rules for everything simply because we cannot predict each and every situation that's going to happen. Sometimes particular situations occur and we just need to make hard calls on the spot. Sometimes we need to revert decisions etc. The web is a continuously evolving entity and we need to stay flexible if we want to survive.
That being said, I'm normally not a fan of deleting stuff but it really depends on how harmful the situation can be. In this case I'm actually more inclined to agree with mods editing and adding warnings rather than deleting.
''John99 [[#post-64056|said]]''
<blockquote>
Looks like Alice's opinion is correct.
Are we also then allowed to edit threads to warn of other bad advice.
</blockquote>
This is still a discussion and no decision has been made yet. There is no right or wrong answer. We need to hear what people have to say and then decide the best course of action. I have also called for more participation in this thread in the community meeting today.
Also, I think it's worth to remind ourselves that we will never be able to have perfect guidelines or make rules for everything simply because we cannot predict each and every situation that's going to happen. Sometimes particular situations occur and we just need to make hard calls on the spot. Sometimes we need to revert decisions etc. The web is a continuously evolving entity and we need to stay '''flexible''' if we want to survive.
That being said, I'm normally not a fan of deleting stuff but it really depends on how harmful the situation can be. In this case I'm actually more inclined to agree with mods editing and adding warnings rather than deleting.
I'm normally not a fan of deleting stuff but it really depends on how harmful the situation can be. In this case I'm actually more inclined to agree with mods editing and adding warnings rather than deleting.
Yes, editing a harmful answer by striking it out is better then deleting it. The OP and others watching the thread got the email anyway with the bad answer. That's why it's important for the moderator to add a new reply with an explanation and warning not to follow the bad advice.
''Madasan [[#post-64058|said]]''
<blockquote>
I'm normally not a fan of deleting stuff but it really depends on how harmful the situation can be. In this case I'm actually more inclined to agree with mods editing and adding warnings rather than deleting.
</blockquote>
Yes, <s>editing a harmful answer</s> by striking it out is better then deleting it. The OP and others watching the thread got the email anyway with the bad answer. That's why it's important for the moderator to add a new reply with an explanation and warning not to follow the bad advice.
The OP and others watching the thread got the email anyway with the bad answer.
That's a very good point Alice! Deleting works probably better if we think of other users browsing the web however it doesn't really help the OP. And we cannot control the notifications that go out.
I'll give this another day to see if there are more comments and then we can decide.
''AliceWyman [[#post-64069|said]]''
<blockquote>
The OP and others watching the thread got the email anyway with the bad answer.
</blockquote>
That's a very good point Alice! Deleting works probably better if we think of other users browsing the web however it doesn't really help the OP. And we cannot control the notifications that go out.
I'll give this another day to see if there are more comments and then we can decide.
I posted the following reply in a current Moderators forum thread (that link won't work for non-moderators) and thought I should repost it here. It's just my opinion, others may disagree. It needs Admin input.
Right now the rules only talk about not posting harmful links. Contributors should not give instructions that can cause real harm, such as how to bypass the Mozilla Blocklist (if users insist, the question can be escalated to the Helpdesk). I think this should be added to Answering questions on the Support Forum under "Posting replies" (it could also be added to Mozilla Support rules and guidelines under a new "Posting answers" section)
Do not post answers that expose users to security vulnerabilities, such how to bypass the Mozilla Blocklist, even if the question specifically asks for that information. Refer such questions to the Helpdesk (see Escalation guidelines) or refer to a moderator by using the "Report Abuse" button.
Moderators should review these questions, edit out answers with potentially harmful information, and add a comment explaining why the advice may be harmful. This could also be added to Forum moderation guidelines under "Editing inappropriate content".
Users who cannot update Flash (or other plugins) for whatever reason (or who simply don't want to be bothered) should NOT be told how to bypass the blocklist. Plugin blocks are Click to Play and the plugin can still be activated without updating it. Users can even select the option to "Allow and Remember" on a site-by-site basis so that trusted sites will always activate the plugin. Refer users to the Why do I have to click to activate plugins? article.
<snip>
+1 AliceWyman, seems we as a volunteer have to work under guidelines,so it will not outrage the policy on which we are working. Thanks for re-posting here.
''AliceWyman [[#post-64042|said]]''
<blockquote>
I posted the following reply in a current [/forums/forum-moderators/711069 Moderators forum thread] (that link won't work for non-moderators) and thought I should repost it here. It's just my opinion, others may disagree. It needs Admin input.
-----
Right now the rules only talk about not posting harmful links. Contributors should not give instructions that can cause real harm, such as how to bypass the Mozilla Blocklist (if users insist, the question can be escalated to the Helpdesk). I think this should be added to [[Answering questions on the Support Forum]] under "Posting replies" (it could also be added to [[Forum rules and guidelines]] under a new "Posting answers" section)
''Do not post answers that expose users to security vulnerabilities, such how to bypass the [[Add-ons that cause stability or security issues are put on a blocklist|Mozilla Blocklist]], even if the question specifically asks for that information. Refer such questions to the Helpdesk (see [[Escalation guidelines]]) or refer to a moderator by using the "Report Abuse" button.''
Moderators should review these questions, edit out answers with potentially harmful information, and add a comment explaining why the advice may be harmful. This could also be added to [[Forum moderation guidelines]] under "Editing inappropriate content".
Users who cannot update Flash (or other plugins) for whatever reason (or who simply don't want to be bothered) should NOT be told how to bypass the blocklist. Plugin blocks are Click to Play and the plugin can still be activated without updating it. Users can even select the option to "Allow and Remember" on a site-by-site basis so that trusted sites will always activate the plugin. Refer users to the [[Why do I have to click to activate plugins?]] article.
<snip>
</blockquote>
+1 AliceWyman, seems we as a volunteer have to work under guidelines,so it will not outrage the policy on which we are working. Thanks for re-posting here.
I view this a lot like when users are told how to downgrade, so I think there past discussions we can look up for precedents.
I also think the rules in the forum are supposed to be a lot more relaxed when it comes to what answers are allowed, as opposed to the KB.
In this case, I disagree with intentionally hiding information from the user, especially if the user is specifically asking how to disable the blocklist.
What's important is explaining why some add-ons are being blocked, and the dangers of disabling the blocklist. If someone else posts instructions on how to disable it, we just need to add a warning.
If people see the answer on a different site, it looks bad on sumo. It gives the impression that this is not the place to go for support, because the people here don't know Firefox as well as people on other sites.
I view this a lot like when users are told how to downgrade, so I think there past discussions we can look up for precedents.
I also think the rules in the forum are supposed to be a lot more relaxed when it comes to what answers are allowed, as opposed to the KB.
In this case, I disagree with intentionally hiding information from the user, especially if the user is specifically asking how to disable the blocklist.
What's important is explaining why some add-ons are being blocked, and the dangers of disabling the blocklist. If someone else posts instructions on how to disable it, we just need to add a warning.
If people see the answer on a different site, it looks bad on sumo. It gives the impression that this is not the place to go for support, because the people here don't know Firefox as well as people on other sites.
The KB already explains how to downgrade Firefox: Install an older version of Firefox. The problem is when contributors just explain how to downgrade without providing alternatives or warnings. The KB doesn't cover bypassing the blocklist.
We can still have the following rule/ guideline:
You should not give answers that expose users to security vulnerabilities, such how to bypass the Mozilla Blocklist, even if the question specifically asks for that information. If a Knowledge Base article covers the issue, such as how to install an older version of Firefox, refer users to the KB article instead. Otherwise, refer such questions to the Helpdesk (see Escalation guidelines) or refer to a moderator by using the "Report Abuse" button.
A moderator or the Helpdesk can decide how or whether to answer it, or if information that can be harmful should be edited, if the question was already answered.
The KB already explains how to downgrade Firefox: [[Install an older version of Firefox]]. The problem is when contributors just explain how to downgrade without providing alternatives or warnings. The KB doesn't cover bypassing the blocklist.
We can still have the following rule/ guideline:
''You should not give answers that expose users to security vulnerabilities, such how to bypass the [[Add-ons that cause stability or security issues are put on a blocklist |Mozilla Blocklist]], even if the question specifically asks for that information. If a Knowledge Base article covers the issue, such as how to [[Install an older version of Firefox|install an older version of Firefox]], refer users to the KB article instead. Otherwise, refer such questions to the Helpdesk (see [[Escalation guidelines]]) or refer to a moderator by using the "Report Abuse" button.''
A moderator or the Helpdesk can decide how or whether to answer it, or if information that can be harmful should be edited, if the question was already answered.
Alice, I like that.
I think that is a better and more general solution.
It covers my concerns that where there are links to or mention of external sources we should still try to explain or draw attention to the risks involved.
It encourages Mod or Helpdesk overview and involvement where necessary.
Alice, I like that.
I think that is a better and more general solution.
It covers my concerns that where there are links to or mention of external sources we should still try to explain or draw attention to the risks involved.
It encourages Mod or Helpdesk overview and involvement where necessary.
The KB already explains how to downgrade Firefox: Install an older version of Firefox. The problem is when contributors just explain how to downgrade without providing alternatives or warnings. The KB doesn't cover bypassing the blocklist.
Exactly - we're not refusing to tell people how to downgrade, and I don't think we should refuse to tell people how disable the blocklist.
If I understand what you're suggesting, you're saying we shouldn't allow normal contributors to answer certain questions, because they might give bad or incomplete answers. I think we're much better off adding warnings to incomplete answers if that happens. There are good contributors out there. We shouldn't defer tasks to moderators and helpdesk that we don't need to.
''AliceWyman [[#post-64126|said]]''
<blockquote>
The KB already explains how to downgrade Firefox: [[Install an older version of Firefox]]. The problem is when contributors just explain how to downgrade without providing alternatives or warnings. The KB doesn't cover bypassing the blocklist.
</blockquote>
Exactly - we're not refusing to tell people how to downgrade, and I don't think we should refuse to tell people how disable the blocklist.
If I understand what you're suggesting, you're saying we shouldn't allow normal contributors to answer certain questions, because they might give bad or incomplete answers. I think we're much better off adding warnings to incomplete answers if that happens. There are good contributors out there. We shouldn't defer tasks to moderators and helpdesk that we don't need to.
We want contributors to answer questions with real solutions, such as how to update a vulnerable plugin or use the "click-to-play feature described in the Why do I have to click to activate plugins? article. We don't want contributors to offer unsafe solutions like bypassing the blocklist when a vulnerable add-on is involved.
For problems appearing after a Firefox update, try first to solve the issue. In case there are no solutions, provide a link to the previous version, if the user insists, and add a warning below the link stating that the version is insecure and can potentially compromise the confidentiality, integrity or availability of personal information.
Example: /questions/1045556 How can I prevent Firefox from checking whether Adobe Flash is up to date? (OP: Perhaps I should have worded it better: I want to disable the annoying "feature" that requires me to press an extra button every time I encounter a video until Flash is updated.
If users insist they want to disable the blocklist (or other security feature) refer to the Helpdesk or to a moderator. Another option might be to ask for help in the Support Forum Contributors forum, as explained in Answering questions on the support forum under "Getting help.
If a contributor gives an answer that could harm the user, a moderator should be alerted via "Report Abuse". The moderator can either strike out the bad advice and explain, or else add to the incomplete or incorrect answer and include warning (that's up to admin to decide).
We want contributors to answer questions with real solutions, such as how to update a vulnerable plugin or use the "click-to-play feature described in the [[Why do I have to click to activate plugins?]] article. We don't want contributors to '''offer unsafe solutions''' like bypassing the blocklist when a vulnerable add-on is involved.
Mozilla is about security, so we should update the "rule" on that in [[Answering questions on the support forum]] under "[[Answering questions on the support forum#w_posting-replies|Posting replies]], which currently says the following:
-----
* For problems appearing after a Firefox update, try first to solve the issue. In case there are no solutions, provide a link to the [[Installing a previous version of Firefox|previous version]], if the user insists, and add a warning below the link stating that the version is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulnerability_%28computing%29 insecure] and can potentially compromise the confidentiality, integrity or availability of personal information.
-----
Example: [/questions/1045556] How can I prevent Firefox from checking whether Adobe Flash is up to date? (OP: ''Perhaps I should have worded it better: I want to disable the annoying "feature" that requires me to press an extra button every time I encounter a video until Flash is updated.''
If users insist they want to disable the blocklist (or other security feature) refer to the Helpdesk or to a moderator. Another option might be to ask for help in the Support Forum Contributors forum, as explained in [[Answering questions on the support forum]] under "[[Answering questions on the support forum#w_getting-help|Getting help]].
If a contributor gives an answer that could harm the user, a moderator should be alerted via "Report Abuse". The moderator can either strike out the bad advice and explain, or else add to the incomplete or incorrect answer and include warning (that's up to admin to decide).
''AliceWyman [[#post-64126|said]]''
<blockquote> The KB doesn't cover bypassing the blocklist.
</blockquote>
Actually it does (in [[How to stop Firefox from automatically making connections without my permission]] under "Add-on blocklist updating") but not for the purpose of unblocking an unsafe add-on.
Why are you insisting that only moderators or helpdesk be allowed to show users how to disable the blocklist, when anyone is allowed to show users how to downgrade?
Why are you insisting that only moderators or helpdesk be allowed to show users how to disable the blocklist, when anyone is allowed to show users how to downgrade?
My personal opinion is that no one should show users how to disable the blocklist because there are other solutions (updating the add-on, using click-to-play for plugins, or living without the add-on) and because it puts users at risk, not just for one vulnerable add-on but all blocklisted add-ons, as well as for blocklisted graphics drivers that could cause crashes or hangs.
If admin decides that it's OK to give out this information then the best route, I think, would be to refer these questions to the Helpdesk (unless you think a "canned" response, or a paragraph in a KB article on disabling the blocklist, would be better) and to refer questions where someone else already gave the information to a moderator for review.
My personal opinion is that no one should show users how to disable the blocklist because there are other solutions (updating the add-on, using click-to-play for plugins, or living without the add-on) and because it puts users at risk, not just for one vulnerable add-on but all blocklisted add-ons, as well as for blocklisted graphics drivers that could cause crashes or hangs.
If admin decides that it's OK to give out this information then the best route, I think, would be to refer these questions to the Helpdesk (unless you think a "canned" response, or a paragraph in a KB article on disabling the blocklist, would be better) and to refer questions where someone else already gave the information to a moderator for review.
If admin decides that it's OK to give out this information then the best route, I think, would be to refer these questions to the Helpdesk (unless you think a "canned" response, or a paragraph in a KB article on disabling the blocklist, would be better) and to refer questions where someone else already gave the information to a moderator for review.
What I'm basically asking is "why?" to the second paragraph. (quoted above)
Policy regarding downgrading doesn't say to do that.
''AliceWyman [[#post-64147|said]]''
<blockquote>
If admin decides that it's OK to give out this information then the best route, I think, would be to refer these questions to the Helpdesk (unless you think a "canned" response, or a paragraph in a KB article on disabling the blocklist, would be better) and to refer questions where someone else already gave the information to a moderator for review.
</blockquote>
What I'm basically asking is "''why?''" to the second paragraph. (quoted above)
Policy regarding downgrading doesn't say to do that.
For problems appearing after a Firefox update, try first to solve the issue. In case there are no solutions, provide a link to the previous version, if the user insists, and add a warning below the link stating that the version is insecure and can potentially compromise the confidentiality, integrity or availability of personal information.
What I'm saying is, there is alwaysusually a solution for issues caused by blocklisting, so the user can be referred to Why does Mozilla disable some add-ons from running in Firefox? which basically says to update the blocked add-on, (notify the developer for add-ons that don't have updates) or, for plugins, use click-to-play . Here's the example I gave:
/questions/1045556 How can I prevent Firefox from checking whether Adobe Flash is up to date? (OP: I just updated Flash a week ago and already Firefox is prompting me to replace the update with the message "Firefox has prevented the outdated plugin Adobe Flash from running on" (etc.) How can I prevent Firefox (I'm using version 35.0.1) from running this check forever? and also: Perhaps I should have worded it better: I want to disable the annoying "feature" that requires me to press an extra button every time I encounter a video until Flash is updated.
The user doesn't want to use click to play, which is the interim solution and already knows how to update Flash, which is the real solution. He just doesn't want to be bothered with this annoying "feature" (the blocklist) and wants to stop Firefox from ever checking for outdated add-ons again.
If the user isn't satisfied with the real solutions (keeping add-ons updated, using click -to play for plugins) there's nothing much to do except refer to the Helpdesk or to a moderator to explain the policy about not offering a solution that places the user at risk, when there are other solutions.
''Chris Ilias [[#post-64150|said]]''
<blockquote>
What I'm basically asking is "''why?''" to the second paragraph. (quoted above)
Policy regarding downgrading doesn't say to do that.
</blockquote>
Is this what you mean by the "policy regarding downgrading" that you want to also apply to disabling the blocklist?
[[Answering questions on the support forum]] under "[[Answering questions on the support forum#w_posting-replies|Posting replies]]":
-----
For problems appearing after a Firefox update, try first to solve the issue. In case there are no solutions, provide a link to the [[Installing a previous version of Firefox|previous version]], if the user insists, and add a warning below the link stating that the version is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulnerability_%28computing%29 insecure] and can potentially compromise the confidentiality, integrity or availability of personal information.
-----
What I'm saying is, there is <s>always</s><sub>usually</sub> a solution for issues caused by blocklisting, so the user can be referred to [[Add-ons that cause stability or security issues are put on a blocklist]] which basically says to update the blocked add-on, <sub>(notify the developer for add-ons that don't have updates)</sub> or, for plugins, use [[Why do I have to click to activate plugins?|click-to-play]] . Here's the example I gave:
[/questions/1045556] How can I prevent Firefox from checking whether Adobe Flash is up to date? (OP: ''I just updated Flash a week ago and already Firefox is prompting me to replace the update with the message "Firefox has prevented the outdated plugin Adobe Flash from running on" (etc.) How can I prevent Firefox (I'm using version 35.0.1) from running this check forever?'' and also: ''Perhaps I should have worded it better: I want to disable the annoying "feature" that requires me to press an extra button every time I encounter a video until Flash is updated.''
The user doesn't want to use click to play, which is the interim solution and already knows how to update Flash, which is the real solution. He just doesn't want to be bothered with this annoying "feature" (the blocklist) and wants to stop Firefox from ever checking for outdated add-ons again.
If the user isn't satisfied with the real solutions (keeping add-ons updated, using click -to play for plugins) there's nothing much to do except refer to the Helpdesk or to a moderator to explain the policy about not offering a solution that places the user at risk, when there are other solutions.
If admin decides that it's OK to give out this information then the best route, I think, would be to refer these questions to the Helpdesk (unless you think a "canned" response, or a paragraph in a KB article on disabling the blocklist, would be better) and to refer questions where someone else already gave the information to a moderator for review.
I hope admin does not decide to change the existing policy (only provide the information that puts users at risk if there are no other solutions). If admin does decide that it's OK then a "canned response" or a paragraph in a KB article that contributors can link to, with a strong warning, would be the best route (the Helpdesk has enough work to do and once you know how to bypass the blocklist, it isn't a difficult question). Could you come up with the canned response or KB article paragraph? OR, should contributors just link to How to stop Firefox from making automatic connections which explains how to disable the blocklist and turn off other security settings and update checking?
P.S. About what I [[#post-64147|said earlier]]''
<blockquote>
If admin decides that it's OK to give out this information then the best route, I think, would be to refer these questions to the Helpdesk (unless you think a "canned" response, or a paragraph in a KB article on disabling the blocklist, would be better) and to refer questions where someone else already gave the information to a moderator for review.</blockquote>
I hope admin does not decide to change the existing policy (only provide the information that puts users at risk if there are no other solutions). If admin does decide that it's OK then a "canned response" or a paragraph in a KB article that contributors can link to, with a strong warning, would be the best route (the Helpdesk has enough work to do and once you know how to bypass the blocklist, it isn't a difficult question). Could you come up with the canned response or KB article paragraph? <sub> OR, should contributors just link to [[How to stop Firefox from automatically making connections without my permission]] which explains how to disable the blocklist and turn off other security settings and update checking? </sub>
