exicornt switch

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
21 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

exicornt switch

Gerard Meijssen-3
Hoi,
On the en:Wiktionary there is a bozo who thinks it funny to create
articles with titles like "exicornt switch". This is a non existing
word. The guy insists to create this article and uses any means to get
his way. I have been told that this guy is a user on the en.wikipedia as
well. As the frustration of this guy is getting to a level where AOL is
being blocked, I would like to know if we can cooperate and do something
about this vandal.

It is a daily annoyance. :(

Thanks,
   GerardM
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: exicornt switch

M. Williamson
What, may I ask, did he claim was the meaning of "exicornt"? When I
read your e-mail, I just couldn't stop laughing.

I've seen all sorts of weird vandals, as well as people trying to
plant false information, but the idea that somebody would invent a
word and claim it was real, especially something as ludicrous sounding
as "exicornt" (I don't believe any real English words end in -ornt,
and not many end in -rnt).

Mark

On 14/03/06, Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hoi,
> On the en:Wiktionary there is a bozo who thinks it funny to create
> articles with titles like "exicornt switch". This is a non existing
> word. The guy insists to create this article and uses any means to get
> his way. I have been told that this guy is a user on the en.wikipedia as
> well. As the frustration of this guy is getting to a level where AOL is
> being blocked, I would like to know if we can cooperate and do something
> about this vandal.
>
> It is a daily annoyance. :(
>
> Thanks,
>    GerardM
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


--
"Take away their language, destroy their souls." -- Joseph Stalin
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: exicornt switch

Essjay
It has something to do with railroad track switching, I'm not exactly sure
what. This has become a serious problem on many of the Wiktionaries. As I
understand it, it was originally a problem on the English Wikipedia,
complete with abusive sockpuppets and mass disruption; the problem has
apparently been snuffed out there.

A few days ago, a checkuser was done on the vandals on the wiktionaries; I'd
suggest a checkuser on the corresponding user on the English Wikipedia, and
if the results match up, a Jimbo-level ban. This is becoming a serious,
serious problem.

Essjay

On 3/15/06, Mark Williamson <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> What, may I ask, did he claim was the meaning of "exicornt"? When I
> read your e-mail, I just couldn't stop laughing.
>
> I've seen all sorts of weird vandals, as well as people trying to
> plant false information, but the idea that somebody would invent a
> word and claim it was real, especially something as ludicrous sounding
> as "exicornt" (I don't believe any real English words end in -ornt,
> and not many end in -rnt).
>
> Mark
>
> On 14/03/06, Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Hoi,
> > On the en:Wiktionary there is a bozo who thinks it funny to create
> > articles with titles like "exicornt switch". This is a non existing
> > word. The guy insists to create this article and uses any means to get
> > his way. I have been told that this guy is a user on the en.wikipedia as
> > well. As the frustration of this guy is getting to a level where AOL is
> > being blocked, I would like to know if we can cooperate and do something
> > about this vandal.
> >
> > It is a daily annoyance. :(
> >
> > Thanks,
> >    GerardM
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >
>
>
> --
> "Take away their language, destroy their souls." -- Joseph Stalin
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>



--
Essjay
-----
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Essjay
Wikipedia:The Free Encyclopedia
http://www.wikipedia.org/
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: exicornt switch

M. Williamson
Seeing as the user comes from AOL, I can't help but agree.

On 15/03/06, - Essjay - <[hidden email]> wrote:

> It has something to do with railroad track switching, I'm not exactly sure
> what. This has become a serious problem on many of the Wiktionaries. As I
> understand it, it was originally a problem on the English Wikipedia,
> complete with abusive sockpuppets and mass disruption; the problem has
> apparently been snuffed out there.
>
> A few days ago, a checkuser was done on the vandals on the wiktionaries; I'd
> suggest a checkuser on the corresponding user on the English Wikipedia, and
> if the results match up, a Jimbo-level ban. This is becoming a serious,
> serious problem.
>
> Essjay
>
> On 3/15/06, Mark Williamson <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > What, may I ask, did he claim was the meaning of "exicornt"? When I
> > read your e-mail, I just couldn't stop laughing.
> >
> > I've seen all sorts of weird vandals, as well as people trying to
> > plant false information, but the idea that somebody would invent a
> > word and claim it was real, especially something as ludicrous sounding
> > as "exicornt" (I don't believe any real English words end in -ornt,
> > and not many end in -rnt).
> >
> > Mark
> >
> > On 14/03/06, Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > Hoi,
> > > On the en:Wiktionary there is a bozo who thinks it funny to create
> > > articles with titles like "exicornt switch". This is a non existing
> > > word. The guy insists to create this article and uses any means to get
> > > his way. I have been told that this guy is a user on the en.wikipedia as
> > > well. As the frustration of this guy is getting to a level where AOL is
> > > being blocked, I would like to know if we can cooperate and do something
> > > about this vandal.
> > >
> > > It is a daily annoyance. :(
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >    GerardM
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > > [hidden email]
> > > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > "Take away their language, destroy their souls." -- Joseph Stalin
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Essjay
> -----
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Essjay
> Wikipedia:The Free Encyclopedia
> http://www.wikipedia.org/
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


--
"Take away their language, destroy their souls." -- Joseph Stalin
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: exicornt switch

Gerben van der Stouwe
One thing i can think of is making that page with a space in it or a
redirect to the mainpage. Then lock it. That way the vandal won't be
able to disrupt that article again. Of course usefull additions can't be
made as well but its the only viable solution I can think of, as
blocking AOL is definitly not what we want, isn't it.
greetz gerbennn

Mark Williamson schreef:

> Seeing as the user comes from AOL, I can't help but agree.
>
> On 15/03/06, - Essjay - <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> It has something to do with railroad track switching, I'm not exactly sure
>> what. This has become a serious problem on many of the Wiktionaries. As I
>> understand it, it was originally a problem on the English Wikipedia,
>> complete with abusive sockpuppets and mass disruption; the problem has
>> apparently been snuffed out there.
>>
>> A few days ago, a checkuser was done on the vandals on the wiktionaries; I'd
>> suggest a checkuser on the corresponding user on the English Wikipedia, and
>> if the results match up, a Jimbo-level ban. This is becoming a serious,
>> serious problem.
>>
>> Essjay
>>
>> On 3/15/06, Mark Williamson <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> What, may I ask, did he claim was the meaning of "exicornt"? When I
>>> read your e-mail, I just couldn't stop laughing.
>>>
>>> I've seen all sorts of weird vandals, as well as people trying to
>>> plant false information, but the idea that somebody would invent a
>>> word and claim it was real, especially something as ludicrous sounding
>>> as "exicornt" (I don't believe any real English words end in -ornt,
>>> and not many end in -rnt).
>>>
>>> Mark
>>>
>>> On 14/03/06, Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>> Hoi,
>>>> On the en:Wiktionary there is a bozo who thinks it funny to create
>>>> articles with titles like "exicornt switch". This is a non existing
>>>> word. The guy insists to create this article and uses any means to get
>>>> his way. I have been told that this guy is a user on the en.wikipedia as
>>>> well. As the frustration of this guy is getting to a level where AOL is
>>>> being blocked, I would like to know if we can cooperate and do something
>>>> about this vandal.
>>>>
>>>> It is a daily annoyance. :(
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>    GerardM
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Wikipedia-l mailing list
>>>> [hidden email]
>>>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> "Take away their language, destroy their souls." -- Joseph Stalin
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Wikipedia-l mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Essjay
>> -----
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Essjay
>> Wikipedia:The Free Encyclopedia
>> http://www.wikipedia.org/
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikipedia-l mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>>
>
>
> --
> "Take away their language, destroy their souls." -- Joseph Stalin
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l

signature.asc (844 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: exicornt switch

Alphax (Wikipedia email)
Gerben van der Stouwe wrote:
> One thing i can think of is making that page with a space in it or a
> redirect to the mainpage. Then lock it. That way the vandal won't be
> able to disrupt that article again. Of course usefull additions can't be
> made as well but its the only viable solution I can think of, as
> blocking AOL is definitly not what we want, isn't it.

On en.wp there is a template, {{deletedpage}}:

"This page has been deleted, and should not be re-created without a good
reason."

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l

signature.asc (570 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: exicornt switch

Andre Engels
In reply to this post by M. Williamson
2006/3/15, Mark Williamson <[hidden email]>:
> Seeing as the user comes from AOL, I can't help but agree.

Unless AOL changed it policy recently, I think him being from AOL is a
good reason NOT to give a site-wide ban. AOL uses, or at least used to
use, variable IP-numbers. Any blocking would thus block other AOL
users just as likely as the perpetrator himself. And to block all of
AOL for this seems widely disproportional to me..

--
Andre Engels, [hidden email]
ICQ: 6260644  --  Skype: a_engels
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: exicornt switch

Gerard Meijssen-3
Hoi,
It may be disproportional, but the disruption of this vandal is also
disproportional to the benefit we get from AOL. There is no other
method available to prevent this sorry sod somewhat. It would help if
we could put some bumbs on the road making vandalism less easy. It
would also help if we could go to the police.

Thanks,
   GerardM

On 3/19/06, Andre Engels <[hidden email]> wrote:

> 2006/3/15, Mark Williamson <[hidden email]>:
> > Seeing as the user comes from AOL, I can't help but agree.
>
> Unless AOL changed it policy recently, I think him being from AOL is a
> good reason NOT to give a site-wide ban. AOL uses, or at least used to
> use, variable IP-numbers. Any blocking would thus block other AOL
> users just as likely as the perpetrator himself. And to block all of
> AOL for this seems widely disproportional to me..
>
> --
> Andre Engels, [hidden email]
> ICQ: 6260644  --  Skype: a_engels
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: exicornt switch

Mark Evans-3
I disagree with Gerard about the approach to use here. To deny
thousands (millions?) of AOL users the right to contribute to
wikimedia projects because of some guy who tried to create a word
called "exicornt switch" would be a mistake. To justify it because we
supposedly receive very little benefit from AOL is typically elitist.
If said user were blanking out whole useful sections of wiktionary or
launching DOS attacks or something else that would affect the end user
(whom I doubt is affected by the addition of nonsense words such as
this), then maybe a temporary block would be in order. Until then, I
think wiktionary editors need to suck it up and delete these pages as
they come along. Wikipedia is great precisely because it strives to
not privilege one group of users over another. Let's keep it that way.

On 3/19/06, GerardM <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hoi,
> It may be disproportional, but the disruption of this vandal is also
> disproportional to the benefit we get from AOL. There is no other
> method available to prevent this sorry sod somewhat. It would help if
> we could put some bumbs on the road making vandalism less easy. It
> would also help if we could go to the police.
>
> Thanks,
>    GerardM
>
> On 3/19/06, Andre Engels <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > 2006/3/15, Mark Williamson <[hidden email]>:
> > > Seeing as the user comes from AOL, I can't help but agree.
> >
> > Unless AOL changed it policy recently, I think him being from AOL is a
> > good reason NOT to give a site-wide ban. AOL uses, or at least used to
> > use, variable IP-numbers. Any blocking would thus block other AOL
> > users just as likely as the perpetrator himself. And to block all of
> > AOL for this seems widely disproportional to me..
> >
> > --
> > Andre Engels, [hidden email]
> > ICQ: 6260644  --  Skype: a_engels
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: exicornt switch

M. Williamson
The current situation seems to be that all AOL users are blocked
pending cooperation from AOL in trying to stop vandalism. This seems
like a good approach to me.

Existing contributors who already use AOL should be motivated to
contact AOL and request that they cooperate, or they can change ISPs,
or maybe we can allow people who log in with certain usernames.

Mark

On 19/03/06, Mark Evans <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I disagree with Gerard about the approach to use here. To deny
> thousands (millions?) of AOL users the right to contribute to
> wikimedia projects because of some guy who tried to create a word
> called "exicornt switch" would be a mistake. To justify it because we
> supposedly receive very little benefit from AOL is typically elitist.
> If said user were blanking out whole useful sections of wiktionary or
> launching DOS attacks or something else that would affect the end user
> (whom I doubt is affected by the addition of nonsense words such as
> this), then maybe a temporary block would be in order. Until then, I
> think wiktionary editors need to suck it up and delete these pages as
> they come along. Wikipedia is great precisely because it strives to
> not privilege one group of users over another. Let's keep it that way.
>
> On 3/19/06, GerardM <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Hoi,
> > It may be disproportional, but the disruption of this vandal is also
> > disproportional to the benefit we get from AOL. There is no other
> > method available to prevent this sorry sod somewhat. It would help if
> > we could put some bumbs on the road making vandalism less easy. It
> > would also help if we could go to the police.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >    GerardM
> >
> > On 3/19/06, Andre Engels <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > 2006/3/15, Mark Williamson <[hidden email]>:
> > > > Seeing as the user comes from AOL, I can't help but agree.
> > >
> > > Unless AOL changed it policy recently, I think him being from AOL is a
> > > good reason NOT to give a site-wide ban. AOL uses, or at least used to
> > > use, variable IP-numbers. Any blocking would thus block other AOL
> > > users just as likely as the perpetrator himself. And to block all of
> > > AOL for this seems widely disproportional to me..
> > >
> > > --
> > > Andre Engels, [hidden email]
> > > ICQ: 6260644  --  Skype: a_engels
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > > [hidden email]
> > > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


--
"Take away their language, destroy their souls." -- Joseph Stalin
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: exicornt switch

Essjay
So many things to say on this:

1) AOL has been contacted before, by Wikimedia, by the developers, by AOL
users, and the response has always been that they simply don't care. AOL
causes a great deal of problem on en.wikipedia, so getting AOL to cooperate
has been tried quite a bit.

2) Bug 550 deals with the issue of allowing users who have accounts to edit
even if thier IP is blocked. The solution for it is quite simple; it's
actually three lines of code that can be written by anyone with minor PHP
skill. It requires the following:

a) that the patch be enabled;
b) that account creation from blocked IPs be disabled (to prevent the
vandals from simply creating an account to sidestep the IP block) which to
my knowledge is already enabled
c) throttling account creation from IPs to x per day, currently 10 per day.
This allows legit people to create accounts, but prevents vandals from
creating 1000 sleeper accounts to use once the IP is blocked.

The devs are aware of the fix, and are not willing to enable it. The exact
quote was that doing so is a  "very very bad idea." It is thier opinion that
it will be of no use, that the vandals will just create sleeper accounts and
evade the blocks. I don't agree, but I'm not a developer either; I defer to
thier expertise in the matter.

In short, if the only way for AOL to be unblocked is for AOL to cooperate,
then AOL will be blocked until hell freezes over, because they've never
shown any interest in doing so. Anyone on AOL will be blocked, whether they
are logged in or not, and there is no expectation that a change will be
forthcoming. I doubt anything short of a Board-level order to implement a
fix to 550 would solve the problem.

Essjay

On 3/19/06, Mark Williamson <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> The current situation seems to be that all AOL users are blocked
> pending cooperation from AOL in trying to stop vandalism. This seems
> like a good approach to me.
>
> Existing contributors who already use AOL should be motivated to
> contact AOL and request that they cooperate, or they can change ISPs,
> or maybe we can allow people who log in with certain usernames.
>
> Mark
>
> On 19/03/06, Mark Evans <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > I disagree with Gerard about the approach to use here. To deny
> > thousands (millions?) of AOL users the right to contribute to
> > wikimedia projects because of some guy who tried to create a word
> > called "exicornt switch" would be a mistake. To justify it because we
> > supposedly receive very little benefit from AOL is typically elitist.
> > If said user were blanking out whole useful sections of wiktionary or
> > launching DOS attacks or something else that would affect the end user
> > (whom I doubt is affected by the addition of nonsense words such as
> > this), then maybe a temporary block would be in order. Until then, I
> > think wiktionary editors need to suck it up and delete these pages as
> > they come along. Wikipedia is great precisely because it strives to
> > not privilege one group of users over another. Let's keep it that way.
> >
> > On 3/19/06, GerardM <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > Hoi,
> > > It may be disproportional, but the disruption of this vandal is also
> > > disproportional to the benefit we get from AOL. There is no other
> > > method available to prevent this sorry sod somewhat. It would help if
> > > we could put some bumbs on the road making vandalism less easy. It
> > > would also help if we could go to the police.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >    GerardM
> > >
> > > On 3/19/06, Andre Engels <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > > 2006/3/15, Mark Williamson <[hidden email]>:
> > > > > Seeing as the user comes from AOL, I can't help but agree.
> > > >
> > > > Unless AOL changed it policy recently, I think him being from AOL is
> a
> > > > good reason NOT to give a site-wide ban. AOL uses, or at least used
> to
> > > > use, variable IP-numbers. Any blocking would thus block other AOL
> > > > users just as likely as the perpetrator himself. And to block all of
> > > > AOL for this seems widely disproportional to me..
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Andre Engels, [hidden email]
> > > > ICQ: 6260644  --  Skype: a_engels
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > > > [hidden email]
> > > > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> > > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > > [hidden email]
> > > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >
>
>
> --
> "Take away their language, destroy their souls." -- Joseph Stalin
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>



--
Essjay
-----
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Essjay
Wikipedia:The Free Encyclopedia
http://www.wikipedia.org/
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: exicornt switch

M. Williamson
If they can only create 10 per day, then the sleeper acct's can be
banned as well, and if that's still a problem, there should be some
way to make it so their IP can't edit at all, even with an acct.

Mark

On 19/03/06, - Essjay - <[hidden email]> wrote:

> So many things to say on this:
>
> 1) AOL has been contacted before, by Wikimedia, by the developers, by AOL
> users, and the response has always been that they simply don't care. AOL
> causes a great deal of problem on en.wikipedia, so getting AOL to cooperate
> has been tried quite a bit.
>
> 2) Bug 550 deals with the issue of allowing users who have accounts to edit
> even if thier IP is blocked. The solution for it is quite simple; it's
> actually three lines of code that can be written by anyone with minor PHP
> skill. It requires the following:
>
> a) that the patch be enabled;
> b) that account creation from blocked IPs be disabled (to prevent the
> vandals from simply creating an account to sidestep the IP block) which to
> my knowledge is already enabled
> c) throttling account creation from IPs to x per day, currently 10 per day.
> This allows legit people to create accounts, but prevents vandals from
> creating 1000 sleeper accounts to use once the IP is blocked.
>
> The devs are aware of the fix, and are not willing to enable it. The exact
> quote was that doing so is a  "very very bad idea." It is thier opinion that
> it will be of no use, that the vandals will just create sleeper accounts and
> evade the blocks. I don't agree, but I'm not a developer either; I defer to
> thier expertise in the matter.
>
> In short, if the only way for AOL to be unblocked is for AOL to cooperate,
> then AOL will be blocked until hell freezes over, because they've never
> shown any interest in doing so. Anyone on AOL will be blocked, whether they
> are logged in or not, and there is no expectation that a change will be
> forthcoming. I doubt anything short of a Board-level order to implement a
> fix to 550 would solve the problem.
>
> Essjay
>
> On 3/19/06, Mark Williamson <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > The current situation seems to be that all AOL users are blocked
> > pending cooperation from AOL in trying to stop vandalism. This seems
> > like a good approach to me.
> >
> > Existing contributors who already use AOL should be motivated to
> > contact AOL and request that they cooperate, or they can change ISPs,
> > or maybe we can allow people who log in with certain usernames.
> >
> > Mark
> >
> > On 19/03/06, Mark Evans <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > I disagree with Gerard about the approach to use here. To deny
> > > thousands (millions?) of AOL users the right to contribute to
> > > wikimedia projects because of some guy who tried to create a word
> > > called "exicornt switch" would be a mistake. To justify it because we
> > > supposedly receive very little benefit from AOL is typically elitist.
> > > If said user were blanking out whole useful sections of wiktionary or
> > > launching DOS attacks or something else that would affect the end user
> > > (whom I doubt is affected by the addition of nonsense words such as
> > > this), then maybe a temporary block would be in order. Until then, I
> > > think wiktionary editors need to suck it up and delete these pages as
> > > they come along. Wikipedia is great precisely because it strives to
> > > not privilege one group of users over another. Let's keep it that way.
> > >
> > > On 3/19/06, GerardM <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > > Hoi,
> > > > It may be disproportional, but the disruption of this vandal is also
> > > > disproportional to the benefit we get from AOL. There is no other
> > > > method available to prevent this sorry sod somewhat. It would help if
> > > > we could put some bumbs on the road making vandalism less easy. It
> > > > would also help if we could go to the police.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >    GerardM
> > > >
> > > > On 3/19/06, Andre Engels <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > > > 2006/3/15, Mark Williamson <[hidden email]>:
> > > > > > Seeing as the user comes from AOL, I can't help but agree.
> > > > >
> > > > > Unless AOL changed it policy recently, I think him being from AOL is
> > a
> > > > > good reason NOT to give a site-wide ban. AOL uses, or at least used
> > to
> > > > > use, variable IP-numbers. Any blocking would thus block other AOL
> > > > > users just as likely as the perpetrator himself. And to block all of
> > > > > AOL for this seems widely disproportional to me..
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Andre Engels, [hidden email]
> > > > > ICQ: 6260644  --  Skype: a_engels
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> > > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > > > [hidden email]
> > > > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> > > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > > [hidden email]
> > > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > "Take away their language, destroy their souls." -- Joseph Stalin
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Essjay
> -----
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Essjay
> Wikipedia:The Free Encyclopedia
> http://www.wikipedia.org/
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


--
"Take away their language, destroy their souls." -- Joseph Stalin
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: exicornt switch

Maru Dubshinki
In reply to this post by Essjay
On 3/19/06, - Essjay - <[hidden email]> wrote:
...

> 2) Bug 550 deals with the issue of allowing users who have accounts to edit
> even if thier IP is blocked. The solution for it is quite simple; it's
> actually three lines of code that can be written by anyone with minor PHP
> skill. It requires the following:
>
> a) that the patch be enabled;
> b) that account creation from blocked IPs be disabled (to prevent the
> vandals from simply creating an account to sidestep the IP block) which to
> my knowledge is already enabled
> c) throttling account creation from IPs to x per day, currently 10 per day.
> This allows legit people to create accounts, but prevents vandals from
> creating 1000 sleeper accounts to use once the IP is blocked.
>
> The devs are aware of the fix, and are not willing to enable it. The exact
> quote was that doing so is a  "very very bad idea." It is thier opinion that
> it will be of no use, that the vandals will just create sleeper accounts and
> evade the blocks. I don't agree, but I'm not a developer either; I defer to
> thier expertise in the matter.
...
> Essjay

Is that really their reason?  That is *remarkably stupid* of them. I
had thought there was a real reason; such lame excuses disgust me.

The whole idea of blocking, reverting and rollbacking and such like is
to change the balance between the ease of vandalising and the ease of
fixing vandalism in the favor of the latter.
Likewise, the whole idea of blocking is to raise the costs of an
attack on pages to the point where the vandal engages in fewer or none
(at which point the fixing-vandalism comes into play).  Ex. it is hard
to vandalise a conventional website, and so it isn't done often, but
it is easy to vandalise a wiki, so it is done often.
Enabling that feature would raise the cost of vandalism from those
IPs- even if they could still get around it (note that *all* blocks
can be circumvented; it is just too troublesome for most vandals) by
making sleeper accounts, that requires quite a bit of effort and
planning, and waiting- all factors that considerably raise the cost of
vandalism from those IPs, especially since the sleeper accounts would
be indef blocked on surfacing, requiring the vandal to get even more
sleeper accounts, costing ever more effort.
It would be very useful.

~maru
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: exicornt switch

Essjay
Apparently, [[WP:BPP]] is the most current discussion of the matter on
English Wikipedia; it currently has a lot of support, as I hear the story
told. However, given the opposition from the devs, I just don't see it
happening without a Jimbo-level order to do it. He's the one we need to be
lobbying.

And yes, that was the reason: It would be of little use, because they would
just create sleeper accounts.

Essjay

On 3/19/06, Maru Dubshinki <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On 3/19/06, - Essjay - <[hidden email]> wrote:
> ...
> > 2) Bug 550 deals with the issue of allowing users who have accounts to
> edit
> > even if thier IP is blocked. The solution for it is quite simple; it's
> > actually three lines of code that can be written by anyone with minor
> PHP
> > skill. It requires the following:
> >
> > a) that the patch be enabled;
> > b) that account creation from blocked IPs be disabled (to prevent the
> > vandals from simply creating an account to sidestep the IP block) which
> to
> > my knowledge is already enabled
> > c) throttling account creation from IPs to x per day, currently 10 per
> day.
> > This allows legit people to create accounts, but prevents vandals from
> > creating 1000 sleeper accounts to use once the IP is blocked.
> >
> > The devs are aware of the fix, and are not willing to enable it. The
> exact
> > quote was that doing so is a  "very very bad idea." It is thier opinion
> that
> > it will be of no use, that the vandals will just create sleeper accounts
> and
> > evade the blocks. I don't agree, but I'm not a developer either; I defer
> to
> > thier expertise in the matter.
> ...
> > Essjay
>
> Is that really their reason?  That is *remarkably stupid* of them. I
> had thought there was a real reason; such lame excuses disgust me.
>
> The whole idea of blocking, reverting and rollbacking and such like is
> to change the balance between the ease of vandalising and the ease of
> fixing vandalism in the favor of the latter.
> Likewise, the whole idea of blocking is to raise the costs of an
> attack on pages to the point where the vandal engages in fewer or none
> (at which point the fixing-vandalism comes into play).  Ex. it is hard
> to vandalise a conventional website, and so it isn't done often, but
> it is easy to vandalise a wiki, so it is done often.
> Enabling that feature would raise the cost of vandalism from those
> IPs- even if they could still get around it (note that *all* blocks
> can be circumvented; it is just too troublesome for most vandals) by
> making sleeper accounts, that requires quite a bit of effort and
> planning, and waiting- all factors that considerably raise the cost of
> vandalism from those IPs, especially since the sleeper accounts would
> be indef blocked on surfacing, requiring the vandal to get even more
> sleeper accounts, costing ever more effort.
> It would be very useful.
>
> ~maru
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>



--
Essjay
-----
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Essjay
Wikipedia:The Free Encyclopedia
http://www.wikipedia.org/
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: exicornt switch

Craig Franklin-2
In reply to this post by Gerard Meijssen-3
Scríobh Mark Williamson :
>The current situation seems to be that all AOL users are blocked
>pending cooperation from AOL in trying to stop vandalism. This seems
>like a good approach to me.

Frankly, I have to agree.  I can't see any problem with this.

Cheers,
- Craig [[en:Lankiveil]]

-------------------
Craig Franklin
PO Box 764
Ashgrove, Q, 4060
Australia
http://www.halo-17.net - Australia's Favourite Source of Indie Music, Art,
and Culture.

_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: exicornt switch

Andre Engels
In reply to this post by M. Williamson
2006/3/19, Mark Williamson <[hidden email]>:
> The current situation seems to be that all AOL users are blocked
> pending cooperation from AOL in trying to stop vandalism. This seems
> like a good approach to me.

Not to me. It's not the IP's task to micromanage the online behaviour
of their users. And why single out AOL? Why not block ALL users until
their ISP starts to cooperate?

> Existing contributors who already use AOL should be motivated to
> contact AOL and request that they cooperate, or they can change ISPs,
> or maybe we can allow people who log in with certain usernames.

As said before, this should not be something to put on AOL's plate,
and forcing people to switch ISPs sounds like a very bad thing to do -
I have always tried to resist websites that require a certain browser
or operation system. Forcing people to have (or not have) certain ISPs
seems just as bad to me.

--
Andre Engels, [hidden email]
ICQ: 6260644  --  Skype: a_engels
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: exicornt switch

Andre Engels
In reply to this post by Essjay
2006/3/19, - Essjay - <[hidden email]>:

> 2) Bug 550 deals with the issue of allowing users who have accounts to edit
> even if thier IP is blocked. The solution for it is quite simple; it's
> actually three lines of code that can be written by anyone with minor PHP
> skill. It requires the following:
>
> a) that the patch be enabled;
> b) that account creation from blocked IPs be disabled (to prevent the
> vandals from simply creating an account to sidestep the IP block) which to
> my knowledge is already enabled
> c) throttling account creation from IPs to x per day, currently 10 per day.
> This allows legit people to create accounts, but prevents vandals from
> creating 1000 sleeper accounts to use once the IP is blocked.
>
> The devs are aware of the fix, and are not willing to enable it. The exact
> quote was that doing so is a  "very very bad idea." It is thier opinion that
> it will be of no use, that the vandals will just create sleeper accounts and
> evade the blocks. I don't agree, but I'm not a developer either; I defer to
> thier expertise in the matter.

Well, as a voice in the desert, let me say that I'm one not in favor
of 550. In my opinion there is already too much overly broad and long
blocking. If logged-in users are not hit by the block, that will only
worsen, and we're looking forward to the day that not just all of AOL,
but all roaming IPs, internet cafes, schools and libraries are blocked
indefinitely. That's not the direction I want to go, and the
possibility that one might be blocking a logged-in user is one thing
that helps avoiding that.

--
Andre Engels, [hidden email]
ICQ: 6260644  --  Skype: a_engels
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: exicornt switch

Tim Starling
In reply to this post by Andre Engels
Andre Engels wrote:

> 2006/3/19, Mark Williamson <[hidden email]>:
>
>>The current situation seems to be that all AOL users are blocked
>>pending cooperation from AOL in trying to stop vandalism. This seems
>>like a good approach to me.
>
>
> Not to me. It's not the IP's task to micromanage the online behaviour
> of their users. And why single out AOL? Why not block ALL users until
> their ISP starts to cooperate?

We single out AOL because they are the only ISP we know of that categorically refuses to append XFF
headers to proxy requests. Today, before I read this mailing list thread, I wrote this page on the
subject:

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/XFF_project

One of the ISPs on the trusted list (EscapeNet) is only there because I emailed them and asked them
to change their proxy configuration. Their response was fast and friendly. My hope is that other
ISPs will follow their lead, and that eventually the problem of shared IP addresses will be mostly
isolated to AOL.

As for AOL itself: sad to say, but we might need to put up some entry barriers. Bug 550 is an
extreme example of this: a feature which would let sysops restrict access to trusted users only.
Email confirmation with an aol.com address required would be better.

-- Tim Starling

_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: exicornt switch

Gerben van der Stouwe
Tim Starling schreef:

> As for AOL itself: sad to say, but we might need to put up some entry barriers. Bug 550 is an
> extreme example of this: a feature which would let sysops restrict access to trusted users only.
> Email confirmation with an aol.com address required would be better.
>
> -- Tim Starling
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
No, it wouldn't be better. Bug 550 is not restricted to AOL. It's much
more wide spread. It's about schools, proxies, filtering services,
company's

I think the best solution is to give sysops the option to mark users as
trusted. Those users then should be able to "hop" over IP blocks. That
way good contributers can bypass ip blocks but will still be blockable
(by user name).

But WHY hasn't this been picked up earlier, it has been an annoyance for
years now? Are the devs really this ignorant? I guess so, because
there's definitely community support.

Gerben van der Stouwe
[hidden email]
http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gebruiker:Gerbennn


_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l

signature.asc (908 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: exicornt switch

Brion Vibber
In reply to this post by Maru Dubshinki
Maru Dubshinki wrote:

>> The devs are aware of the fix, and are not willing to enable it. The exact
>> quote was that doing so is a  "very very bad idea." It is thier opinion that
>> it will be of no use, that the vandals will just create sleeper accounts and
>> evade the blocks. I don't agree, but I'm not a developer either; I defer to
>> thier expertise in the matter.
> ...
>> Essjay
>
> Is that really their reason?  That is *remarkably stupid* of them. I
> had thought there was a real reason; such lame excuses disgust me.
Nope.

The real situation is that our current blocking system sucks. A lot. And if we
just "flipped a switch" it would suck *MUCH WORSE* because it would be virtually
impossible to actually block anyone -- just create a bunch of accounts and
you're immune until someone laboriously tracks them all down.

So, it'll take more options and rethinking and generally some better, clearer
idea of what blocking's supposed to do.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)


_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l

signature.asc (257 bytes) Download Attachment
12