Grawp has been a problem for a very long time and not only on the english wikipedia but on every single wikimedia wiki as well as about 200 other wikis and wikia and even though most of his edits were just page moves with links to shocksites, but quite recently within the last 6 month, he has started to randomly attack users both on their sex and religion and quite recently he has stoop so low as to attack the users family members and children which is most definitely the nail to the coffin. This has gone far enough and since the mother does not want to take matters to her own hands, we may have to take this one step further and go to the feds because internet bullying and harassment is a CRIME and its about time he paid the price..we have had enough !!
a.. 2007-09-05T20:26:03 (hist) (diff) m Talk:Muhammad ? (moved Talk:Muhammad to Talk:Muhammad raped little children, and he was a known prostitute, aka male whore. He worshiped Satan and sacrificed babies in his name.)
Okay...This is about the worst I hav found, and it does not go under the heading of common assault. So, where is this stuff where Jeremy Hanson makes threats about doing things like this? Overall, he seems like a bot that likes moving things to "HAGGER????". Under verizon's acceptable use policy, if they were enforcing it, yes, he could find himself and his mother disjoined from the internet. Under the law though, it is not common assault, so that hoped-for visit from feds is not likely. Hate-crimes? I did not look there, yet. They are not big in the western world. Remember the cartoons published? So, in total, I think range blocks are the best way to go. People with IDs will still be able to edit from verizon, and in fact people can obtain IDs via-e-mail, so I think "collateral damage" is a strong term for unintentional and temporary blocks. This will let the clerks nail down all of Grawp's accounts before he creates new ones. In a world of rampant excellence, verizon's users will ask verizon why, and verizon will ask someone at wikipedia in turn. Where is the common assault? _______ Nobody can abuse you without your permission. --Ann Landers
"Comet styles" cometstyles@gmail.com wrote in message news:c7c66430812141923r3605e9a3s175d1dcb34180cf@mail.gmail.com...
Grawp has been a problem for a very long time and not only on the english wikipedia but on every single wikimedia wiki as well as about 200 other wikis and wikia and even though most of his edits were just page moves with links to shocksites, but quite recently within the last 6 month, he has started to randomly attack users both on their sex and religion and quite recently he has stoop so low as to attack the users family members and children which is most definitely the nail to the coffin. This has gone far enough and since the mother does not want to take matters to her own hands, we may have to take this one step further and go to the feds because internet bullying and harassment is a CRIME and its about time he paid the price..we have had enough !!
-- Cometstyles
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 6:40 AM, brewhaha%40edmc.net brewhaha@edmc.netwrote:
a.. 2007-09-05T20:26:03 (hist) (diff) m Talk:Muhammad ? (moved Talk:Muhammad to Talk:Muhammad raped little children, and he was a known prostitute, aka male whore. He worshiped Satan and sacrificed babies in his name.)
Okay...This is about the worst I hav found, and it does not go under the heading of common assault. So, where is this stuff where Jeremy Hanson makes threats about doing things like this? Overall, he seems like a bot that likes moving things to "HAGGER????". Under verizon's acceptable use policy, if they were enforcing it, yes, he could find himself and his mother disjoined from the internet. Under the law though, it is not common assault, so that hoped-for visit from feds is not likely. Hate-crimes? I did not look there, yet. They are not big in the western world. Remember the cartoons published? So, in total, I think range blocks are the best way to go. People with IDs will still be able to edit from verizon, and in fact people can obtain IDs via-e-mail, so I think "collateral damage" is a strong term for unintentional and temporary blocks. This will let the clerks nail down all of Grawp's accounts before he creates new ones. In a world of rampant excellence, verizon's users will ask verizon why, and verizon will ask someone at wikipedia in turn. Where is the common assault?
You clearly haven't looked very far then. He's made hundreds of attacks on editors in page moves and username creations. I won't say what they are, but I assure you, they are nasty.
I asked *where*, as in a link. Even suspected sockpuppets are fine, because checkuser is not a crystal ball, and I am not too shabby at patterns. The standard for reporting to police is common assault. That means an explicit threat of violence against a specific individual, organization or group. It is a lot more common in bars where you can read how serious they are. Hence the question to Durova about "How did that make you feel?". (It makes the written medium more difficult, and not impossible). The transaction must be accessible to police if not me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sarrukh&diff=prev&old... That counts as a personal attack on wikipedia. It does not count as common assault, so I do not see any visits from the F.B.I. prompted by the R.C.M.P., for Jeremy Hanson, today. Maybe some phone calls from vocal wikipedians...'What was the point of that comment you made to ...., saying "...", no wonder some people want to block Verizon... Why don't you spend time in news://alt.flame ? ... Lotsa room for a potty mouth in there. For that matter, there is room for people who want to make serious accusations against high and ancient religious figures. >From the latin it is "Of the dead, only good". Following that standard, Hitler will be forgotten.
"Al Tally" majorly.wiki@googlemail.com wrote in message news:7c865bab0901151825h326d3189jbcd577b410c19e10@mail.gmail.com...
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 6:40 AM, brewhaha%40edmc.net brewhaha@edmc.netwrote:
a.. 2007-09-05T20:26:03 (hist) (diff) m Talk:Muhammad ? (moved Talk:Muhammad to Talk:Muhammad raped little children, and he was a known prostitute, aka male whore. He worshiped Satan and sacrificed babies in his name.)
Okay...This is about the worst I hav found, and it does not go under the heading of common assault. So, where is this stuff where Jeremy Hanson makes threats about doing things like this? Overall, he seems like a bot that likes moving things to "HAGGER????". Under verizon's acceptable use policy, if they were enforcing it, yes, he could find himself and his mother disjoined from the internet. Under the law though, it is not common assault, so that hoped-for visit from feds is not likely. Hate-crimes? I did not look there, yet. They are not big in the western world. Remember the cartoons published? So, in total, I think range blocks are the best way to go. People with IDs will still be able to edit from verizon, and in fact people can obtain IDs via-e-mail, so I think "collateral damage" is a strong term for unintentional and temporary blocks. This will let the clerks nail down all of Grawp's accounts before he creates new ones. In a world of rampant excellence, verizon's users will ask verizon why, and verizon will ask someone at wikipedia in turn. Where is the common assault?
You clearly haven't looked very far then. He's made hundreds of attacks on editors in page moves and username creations. I won't say what they are, but I assure you, they are nasty.
-- Alex (User:Majorly) _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
can continue to use unblocked proxies until we block them all. ( Blocking *all* proxies is nigh on impossible because computers get comprimised daily... So new "open proxies" are created daily.)
Maybe it would if we could hook someone like http://www.1freeproxy.com/feed/atom/ (rss feed for just proxies) in so that they are automatically blocked, which i believe is Wikipedia's policy anyway.
A bot can do that.. Provided that feed is 100% accurate. If we can't trust the feed we can have a program verify its open and then block. ( dunno how practical it is to verify an open proxy by bot) A bot can simply hardblock for a month and have humans check after that if theft are still open. (most proxies don't remain open long)
On 1/18/09, K. Peachey p858snake@yahoo.com.au wrote:
can continue to use unblocked proxies until we block them all. ( Blocking *all* proxies is nigh on impossible because computers get comprimised daily... So new "open proxies" are created daily.)
Maybe it would if we could hook someone like http://www.1freeproxy.com/feed/atom/ (rss feed for just proxies) in so that they are automatically blocked, which i believe is Wikipedia's policy anyway.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
We have bots that do that, grawp still gets through(part of the reason is that these proxies need to be blocked globally or else grawp can still abuse SUL and TOR to create accounts and make the required 10 edits before he has to find an unblocked proxy on enwiki). - Chris
On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 11:25 AM, K. Peachey p858snake@yahoo.com.au wrote:
can continue to use unblocked proxies until we block them all. ( Blocking *all* proxies is nigh on impossible because computers get comprimised daily... So new "open proxies" are created daily.)
Maybe it would if we could hook someone like http://www.1freeproxy.com/feed/atom/ (rss feed for just proxies) in so that they are automatically blocked, which i believe is Wikipedia's policy anyway.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Then I think the thing to do is urge the developers to provide some sort of global block list... Perhaps this is an issue to discuss on meta.
From what you describe, wikimedia would have to take a hsefline
against *all* proxies on *all* wikimedia foundation wikis. This would then have to be enforced by a global IP block list...
On 1/18/09, Christopher Grant chrisgrantmail@gmail.com wrote:
We have bots that do that, grawp still gets through(part of the reason is that these proxies need to be blocked globally or else grawp can still abuse SUL and TOR to create accounts and make the required 10 edits before he has to find an unblocked proxy on enwiki).
- Chris
On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 11:25 AM, K. Peachey p858snake@yahoo.com.au wrote:
can continue to use unblocked proxies until we block them all. ( Blocking *all* proxies is nigh on impossible because computers get comprimised daily... So new "open proxies" are created daily.)
Maybe it would if we could hook someone like http://www.1freeproxy.com/feed/atom/ (rss feed for just proxies) in so that they are automatically blocked, which i believe is Wikipedia's policy anyway.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Hsefline should be hardline... Sorry about the double post.
On 1/18/09, Wilhelm Schnotz wilhelm@nixeagle.org wrote:
Then I think the thing to do is urge the developers to provide some sort of global block list... Perhaps this is an issue to discuss on meta.
From what you describe, wikimedia would have to take a hsefline against *all* proxies on *all* wikimedia foundation wikis. This would then have to be enforced by a global IP block list...
On 1/18/09, Christopher Grant chrisgrantmail@gmail.com wrote:
We have bots that do that, grawp still gets through(part of the reason is that these proxies need to be blocked globally or else grawp can still abuse SUL and TOR to create accounts and make the required 10 edits before he has to find an unblocked proxy on enwiki).
- Chris
On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 11:25 AM, K. Peachey p858snake@yahoo.com.au wrote:
can continue to use unblocked proxies until we block them all. ( Blocking *all* proxies is nigh on impossible because computers get comprimised daily... So new "open proxies" are created daily.)
Maybe it would if we could hook someone like http://www.1freeproxy.com/feed/atom/ (rss feed for just proxies) in so that they are automatically blocked, which i believe is Wikipedia's policy anyway.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- Sent from my mobile device
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Global_blocking - Chris
On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 12:00 PM, Wilhelm Schnotz wilhelm@nixeagle.orgwrote:
Hsefline should be hardline... Sorry about the double post.
On 1/18/09, Wilhelm Schnotz wilhelm@nixeagle.org wrote:
Then I think the thing to do is urge the developers to provide some sort of global block list... Perhaps this is an issue to discuss on meta.
From what you describe, wikimedia would have to take a hsefline against *all* proxies on *all* wikimedia foundation wikis. This would then have to be enforced by a global IP block list...
On 1/18/09, Christopher Grant chrisgrantmail@gmail.com wrote:
We have bots that do that, grawp still gets through(part of the reason
is
that these proxies need to be blocked globally or else grawp can still abuse SUL and TOR to create accounts and make the required 10 edits before he has to find an unblocked proxy on enwiki).
- Chris
On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 11:25 AM, K. Peachey p858snake@yahoo.com.au wrote:
can continue to use unblocked proxies until we block them all. ( Blocking *all* proxies is nigh on impossible because computers get comprimised daily... So new "open proxies" are created daily.)
Maybe it would if we could hook someone like http://www.1freeproxy.com/feed/atom/ (rss feed for just proxies) in so that they are automatically blocked, which i believe is Wikipedia's policy anyway.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- Sent from my mobile device
-- Sent from my mobile device
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 6:36 PM, Christopher Grant <chrisgrantmail@gmail.com
wrote:
We have bots that do that, grawp still gets through(part of the reason is that these proxies need to be blocked globally or else grawp can still abuse SUL and TOR to create accounts and make the required 10 edits before he has to find an unblocked proxy on enwiki).
- Chris
On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 11:25 AM, K. Peachey p858snake@yahoo.com.au wrote:
can continue to use unblocked proxies until we block them all. ( Blocking *all* proxies is nigh on impossible because computers get comprimised daily... So new "open proxies" are created daily.)
Maybe it would if we could hook someone like http://www.1freeproxy.com/feed/atom/ (rss feed for just proxies) in so that they are automatically blocked, which i believe is Wikipedia's policy anyway.
Perhaps we could add a front-end proxy check to all connections from previously unknown IPs.
If the account isn't on the known proxy users exemption list, then zap the IP...
You mean something similar to http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:$wgBlockOpenProxies ? - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/ProcseeBot... like the best solution to the proxy part atm. It would be good if we could get it to run with global blocks. - Chris
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 1:06 PM, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.comwrote:
On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 6:36 PM, Christopher Grant < chrisgrantmail@gmail.com
wrote:
We have bots that do that, grawp still gets through(part of the reason is that these proxies need to be blocked globally or else grawp can still abuse SUL and TOR to create accounts and make the required 10 edits before he
has
to find an unblocked proxy on enwiki).
- Chris
On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 11:25 AM, K. Peachey p858snake@yahoo.com.au wrote:
can continue to use unblocked proxies until we block them all. ( Blocking *all* proxies is nigh on impossible because computers get comprimised daily... So new "open proxies" are created daily.)
Maybe it would if we could hook someone like http://www.1freeproxy.com/feed/atom/ (rss feed for just proxies) in so that they are automatically blocked, which i believe is Wikipedia's policy anyway.
Perhaps we could add a front-end proxy check to all connections from previously unknown IPs.
If the account isn't on the known proxy users exemption list, then zap the IP...
-- -george william herbert george.herbert@gmail.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 8:27 PM, Christopher Grant <chrisgrantmail@gmail.com
wrote:
You mean something similar to http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:$wgBlockOpenProxies ? -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/ProcseeBot... like the best solution to the proxy part atm. It would be good if we could get it to run with global blocks.
- Chris
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 1:06 PM, George Herbert <george.herbert@gmail.com
wrote:
On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 6:36 PM, Christopher Grant < chrisgrantmail@gmail.com
wrote:
We have bots that do that, grawp still gets through(part of the reason
is
that these proxies need to be blocked globally or else grawp can still abuse SUL and TOR to create accounts and make the required 10 edits before he
has
to find an unblocked proxy on enwiki).
- Chris
On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 11:25 AM, K. Peachey p858snake@yahoo.com.au wrote:
can continue to use unblocked proxies until we block them all. ( Blocking *all* proxies is nigh on impossible because computers get comprimised daily... So new "open proxies" are created daily.)
Maybe it would if we could hook someone like http://www.1freeproxy.com/feed/atom/ (rss feed for just proxies)
in
so that they are automatically blocked, which i believe is
Wikipedia's
policy anyway.
Perhaps we could add a front-end proxy check to all connections from previously unknown IPs.
If the account isn't on the known proxy users exemption list, then zap
the
IP...
Wonders (and poorly-known features) will never cease.
Anyone run with that on and got good CPU / net load data on it?
Its disabled for very good reason "If you enable this, every editor's IP address will be scanned for open HTTP proxies." Good luck getting someone to enable it. - Chris
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 1:36 PM, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.comwrote:
On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 8:27 PM, Christopher Grant < chrisgrantmail@gmail.com
wrote:
You mean something similar to http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:$wgBlockOpenProxies ? -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/ProcseeBot...
like the best solution to the proxy part atm. It would be good if we could get it to run with global blocks.
- Chris
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 1:06 PM, George Herbert <
george.herbert@gmail.com
wrote:
On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 6:36 PM, Christopher Grant < chrisgrantmail@gmail.com
wrote:
We have bots that do that, grawp still gets through(part of the
reason
is
that these proxies need to be blocked globally or else grawp can
still
abuse SUL and TOR to create accounts and make the required 10 edits before
he
has
to find an unblocked proxy on enwiki).
- Chris
On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 11:25 AM, K. Peachey <p858snake@yahoo.com.au
wrote:
can continue to use unblocked proxies until we block them all. ( Blocking *all* proxies is nigh on impossible because computers get comprimised daily... So new "open proxies" are created daily.)
Maybe it would if we could hook someone like http://www.1freeproxy.com/feed/atom/ (rss feed for just proxies)
in
so that they are automatically blocked, which i believe is
Wikipedia's
policy anyway.
Perhaps we could add a front-end proxy check to all connections from previously unknown IPs.
If the account isn't on the known proxy users exemption list, then zap
the
IP...
Wonders (and poorly-known features) will never cease.
Anyone run with that on and got good CPU / net load data on it?
-- -george william herbert george.herbert@gmail.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
"George Herbert" george.herbert@gmail.com wrote in message news:38a7bf7c0901192006p3fe2a3ft987dfeea3a11f6d0@mail.gmail.com...
On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 6:36 PM, Christopher Grant <chrisgrantmail@gmail.com
wrote:
We have bots that do that, grawp still gets through(part of the reason is that these proxies need to be blocked globally or else grawp can still abuse SUL and TOR to create accounts and make the required 10 edits before he has to find an unblocked proxy on enwiki).
- Chris
On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 11:25 AM, K. Peachey p858snake@yahoo.com.au wrote:
can continue to use unblocked proxies until we block them all. ( Blocking *all* proxies is nigh on impossible because computers get comprimised daily... So new "open proxies" are created daily.)
Maybe it would if we could hook someone like http://www.1freeproxy.com/feed/atom/ (rss feed for just proxies) in so that they are automatically blocked, which i believe is Wikipedia's policy anyway.
Perhaps we could add a front-end proxy check to all connections from previously unknown IPs.
If the account isn't on the known proxy users exemption list, then zap the IP...
I am not sure what you mean. I imajin that checkusers can construct a list of accounts that were created from a particular IP#. If not, then that would be a useful tool. Under dynamic IP, it would be nothing but clues that do not go together in a reliable manner, and IP# reassignments would be a headache for the tool designer in any case.
Or are you guessing that proxies are identifiable as such. They are not. Start with the case of a living proxy. HTTPS is the main reliable manner of verifying anyone's identity, and it offers a level of inconvenience to openning accounts and ensuring the privacy of the private partner to your public key. There is a proposed modification of protocol for HTTP, "X-Forwarded-For". It is actually a remake of a STANDARD header that Lynx can send, but does not send by default (AFAIK, Explorer does not support e-mail addresses in HTTP headers). If an ISP filled out the e-mail address, then that could work with a higher degree of authenticity, and it would hav to be restricted to sites that hav the right to demand it, somehow. It is something of a technical nightmare, because the software for inserting this header is not common, and the privacy measures are another ball of string. To demand it, we would technically be requiring all ISPs to be _active mod_ proxies. Similarly, to demand HTTPS would require certificate authorities. [[Digital Signature]] [[Secure wikipedia]] _______ http://ecn.ab.ca/~brewhaha/Privileged%20Information%20for%20Newbies.HTM